Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

EEC Social Action Programme

Mr. Jim Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action she has taken to implement those parts of the EEC social action programme which fall within her Department's responsibility.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): The United Kingdom has secured approval for payments from the European Social Fund towards the cost of schemes to rehabilitate handicapped persons. Commission proposals concerning other parts of the programme affecting my Department are still being discussed within the Community or are awaited.

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he give an indication of the level of funds available at the moment for that and also what voluntary bodies in this country are working in co-operation with his Department to further these pilot schemes?

Mr. O'Malley: The total level of expenditure from Community funds as they are envisaged for a two-year period is £1 million. Second, there is an advisory committee which was set up directly through the EEC by a number of individuals who are in other ways connected with voluntary organisations. My Department is in contact with that advisory committee.

Mr. Moonman: Apart from one's attitude to the Common Market, would my right hon. Friend agree that this is a bold and imaginative programme which is being conducted by the EEC? How can he make these support grants better known in this country? How many people are involved, particularly among the physically handicapped?

Mr. O'Malley: I should make it clear that the whole of this social action programme is in the very early stages. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a separate Question on his second point. I should want notice of it.

Haemophiliacs (Drugs)

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will now consider making adequate supplies of Factor VIII (AHG) available to the National Health Service so that it is self-sufficient in this product for the benefit of those suffering from haemophilia.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Socal Security (Dr. David Owen): I have authorised the allocation of special finance of up to £500,000, about half of which would be recurring, to increase the existing production of Factor VIII, especially in the form of anti-haemophilic globulin concentrate (AHG), within the National Health Service. The first effects of this will, I hope, be felt by the end of the year.

Mr. Watkinson: I welcome that reply. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the major problems in relation to Factor VIII is that the purchase of this drug rests with the regional health authorities and that it has to compete with many other requirements within those authorities? Will he also accept that this is far and away the best treatment for haemophilia? Will he accept too that in those circumstances it might be possible for the National Health Service to purchase the drug centrally as it does with L-dopa? Will he seriously consider recommending that the drug should be available to people at home and not only in hospitals, as many people have to travel many miles either for treatment or to obtain the drug?

Dr. Owen: I confirm that in most cases I think it is the most desirable form of treatment, but one cannot avoid the fact that this is one of the many costly treatments which are competing on priorities. The present system whereby a doctor can persuade his local area health authority that his patient needs this form of treatment most is the best way of proceeding, and not by central allocation. If we were to go to all-commercial purchase of this factor, it would cost an additional £1½ million to £2 million annually.

Mr. Marten: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that under-treatment of children with this drug causes unnecessary

suffering and terrible disruption of family life if a young child is involved? Cannot he go a stage further and give slightly more of a lead to the regional health authorities really to do something about this?

Dr. Owen: They are aware of our concern and have had ample demonstration of it by the fact that we are prepared to divert scarce resources to make the National Health Service self-sufficient, but I concede that it will take two or three years before we are at full production. During that time I am sure that they will weigh very carefully the individual cases and will be sympathetic to the sort of hardship which can arise.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: While one welcomes the extra expenditure which my hon. Friend has announced, and of which I am aware in view of the recent case I brought to his attention, may I ask whether he does not agree that we still lag behind in this matter, particularly compared with small countries such as Israel, which is doing much more than we are in this respect?

Dr. Owen: I know my hon. Friend's concern, but hon. Members must face the fact that with limited resources we have to choose, and these are very difficult choices and priorities. When confronted with an ill child, everyone wants to get the best that is available, but there are many other aspects of child care which also have priority and we are not always able to meet all the demands.

Family Allowances (EEC Countries)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the level of family allowance payable to first or only children in the nine countries of the EEC.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mrs. Barbara Castle): As the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. McCrindle: As the Government's family endowment scheme was, I think, seen by many as the entry price for this


country to the European league of paying a family allowance to the first child, and as that scheme now seems to have been indefinitely postponed, will the right hon. Lady consider, at the relatively meagre net cost of £11 million, extending the family allowance scheme to the first or only child of one-parent families? Would not that mean that the Government would then be accepting one of the principal recommendations of the Finer Report?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both his premises. The child endowment scheme of the Labour Party was worked out when we were in opposition as part of our total social policy, completely unrelated to any question of membership of the Common Market. After all, in the Common Market France has no automatic payment of family allowance for the first child. Therefore, it is by no means completely universal there. Nor is the hon. Gentleman right in saying that our child benefit scheme has been indefinitely postponed. An announcement on all these matters can be expected before too long.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: To get a true comparison between the United Kingdom and the EEC countries when the record is available, may we be told all the ages of the children and the duration of each allowance? May we also know whether, in the various countries for which information is given, we may learn about the availability or otherwise of free milk, and, again, at what ages?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Lady is quite right that the payment of the family allowance or the level of the family allowance is not the complete index of family support. There are many other matters of great importance to the family—not least food and housing subsidies, whether there is free medical care, and the level of ante-natal and post-natal care. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about that. With regard to her request for this detailed information to be made available, I do not think that it is in the table we have prepared for publication in Hansard today, but I shall look into the

matter and see whether we can extend the information for her.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is not my right hon. Friend bewildered by Opposition Members who from time to time demand a levelling-up of social service and any other benefits to compare with those in Common Market countries but at the same time scream murder when our wage-earners, the miners who work at the coalface in particular, try to level up their wages to those paid in the Common Market?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. But I am even more bewildered that any questions about the need to increase or extend family allowances should come from the Opposition, remembering that the Conservative Party fought the 1970 election on a promise to increase family allowances and promptly broke it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If I may disregard the fact that in the reply the right hon. Lady overlooked our family income supplement, may I ask whether she is aware of the disappointment in many quarters of the House that she has ducked another opportunity of making her position clear about the family endowment scheme and Child Benefit Bill, which were part of the Government's proposals to bring in the family allowance for the first child? As the whole House knows from leaks, this plan has been put back beyond the intended date of April 1976. When will the right hon. Lady have the courage to come to the House and make a statement explaining why she has abandoned such an important part of the social contract and why she is ratting on a clear election commitment of the Labour Party?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has no ground whatsoever for that assumption. I would point out to him that again, unlike our predecessors, the present Government have fulfilled their promises to increase family allowance, within a year of taking office in February 1974. Therefore we have lost no time, and we shall certainly keep our promise about a child benefit scheme.

Following is the information:

On the latest information available, the rates of family allowances payable for first or only children are as follows:







Monthly FAM
Sterling equivalent of Monthly FAM
Sterling equivalent of Weekly FAM








£
£


Irish Republic
…
…
…
£2·30
2·30(1)
0·53(1)(2)


Italy
…
…
…
…
8,060 Lire
5·28
1·22


Holland
…
…
…
…
54·86 Florins
9·57
2·21


Belgium
…
…
…
…
1,026·50 BFr (3)
12·39
2·86


Denmark
…
…
…
…
132·3 Kroner
10·02
2·31


Germany
…
…
…
…
50 DM
9·05
2·09


Luxembourg
…
…
…
814 LFr
9·82
2·27


France
…
…
…
…

No general provision (4)



United Kingdom
…
…
…

No general provision at present



(1) Exchange rates as at 20th February 1975.


(2) Weekly rate calculated on basis of 52 week year.


(3) Plus an allowance for child aged 6 or over, according to age, of up to 548·25 BFr monthly (£6·62 monthly, £1·53 weekly)


(4) In certain circumstances, and subject to a means test, an increase of up to 242·05 Fr monthly (£23·72 monthly, £5·47 weekly) may be added to the allowance paid to a family with only one wage earner.


Comparisons of rates and coverage of family allowances are misleading unless they take account of the local cost of living (particularly that affecting the maintenance of children) and other factors which vary from country to country, such as the levels of wages and taxation, housing or food subsidies, and the extent of free education, medical care and ante and post-natal welfare and advice services.

Children in Care

Mrs. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children in care are members of one-parent families; and what proportion of all children in care they represent.

Mrs. Castle: I regret that the information is not available.

Mrs. Hayman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply but I am sorry that the information is not available. I find it a matter of concern that such information is not available, and I must ask her whether she agrees. Does she agree with me that the impression among those who work in the social services is that although one-parent families form only one-tenth of the community the proportion of children in care who are members of one-parent families is considerably higher than that? If my right hon. Friend agrees about that, will she accept that many of those children are in care unnecessarily and simply because our society does not provide the services and the money for their families to sustain them in the community? Will she give some hope to one-parent families, whether or not their children are in care, of greater help in the future, apart from the family endowment scheme? Although I welcome that scheme, it will not solve the problems of one-parent families.

Mrs. Castle: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, information about children in care was collected by our predecessors and published in March 1973 in Command 5815. It was considered more important to place emphasis on identification of the circumstances in which children were placed in care than on the nature of the families from which they came. That is the information which is given in the White Paper and which is crucial for social policy. It is important to emphasise that.
With regard to my hon. Friend's other point, I should be glad to send her a copy of the speech I made on Friday to the Conference on One-Parent Families which sets out in considerable detail not only what steps we have already taken to fulfil the recommendations of the Finer Report but the other considerations we have in mind.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Opposition would very much support a full debate on the whole question of one-parent families and the Finer Report? Is she aware that the matter of children in care is only one part of the problem we are facing, that there are over 1 million children whose future is affected and that it would be quite wrong if the House could not give a full day's debate to this very important question?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has the remedy in his own hands. We should be delighted if the Opposition were to devote one of their Supply Days to this subject.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Lady has not been fair to the House—and I am sure she is not fair to herself—to suggest that the Government do not have time to debate the whole question of the Finer Report and then to ask my hon. Friend for a Supply Day to be used. Will the right hon. Lady say this afternoon when she will give time to help the one-parent families?

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that matters of the allocation of time for debate are not for me; they are for the Leader of the House. As far as I am concerned, however, I should welcome an opportunity of telling the House at length the steps we have already taken to fulfil the 230-odd recommendations of the Finer Report. I should also point out that my Department has a massive programme of legislation on social advance and social reform and that we need a great deal of parliamentary time to get it on to the statute book.

Community Hospitals

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many community hospitals she has authorised for the year 1975–76.

Dr. Owen: At present I am afraid that I cannot say which capital schemes will be authorised to start during 1975–76. Consultations have taken place with regional health authorities on tentative proposals for the 1975–76 programme. No final decisions will be taken until their priorities have been carefully considered. This should be very shortly.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say whether a new community hospital in Newbury may be in his thoughts? Will he also say what level of service community hospitals will provide and how their services will compare with those already provided by district hospitals?

Dr. Owen: No community hospital at Newbury is at present in the regional health authority programme. But the announcement of the Government's acceptance of the community hospital concept was made only last summer, and

many regional health authorities will take time before they develop their programmes. The size and scope of the community hospitals will vary considerably from area to area.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister able to assure the House that he is continuing to urge upon health authorities the desirability of retaining existing cottage hospitals where they have a future rôle as community hospitals now that there is a recognition of the place of community hospitals?

Dr. Owen: The recognition that in some rural areas the community hospital had a part to play where patients had to travel over great distances was a strong part of our announcement last summer on community hospitals. I cannot say that there will not be closures of some community hospitals, but I can reinforce the message of the White Paper that there is scope for smaller hospitals in rural areas and, in my view, in urban areas. The whole question of the size of the large district hospital is one which we shall have to call into question increasingly over the next few years.

Keighley

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary ot State for Social Services if she will pay an official visit to Keighley.

Mrs. Castle: I have no plans to visit Keighley in the near future.

Mr. Cryer: May I say how sorry I am to receive that answer? If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency she would receive representations from many of my pensioner constituents who are very much concerned at the injustices and anomalies regarding the allocation of free television licences. Will she assure the House that she will give urgent consideration to making free or reduced-price television licences more readily available? Finally, will my right hon. Friend prevail on her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to stop buying nuclear missiles so that the cost of my proposals can be met from defence savings?

Mrs. Castle: It is obvious that my hon. Friend is anxious to keep me busy not only by visiting Keighley but by running


a couple of other Government Departments as well. My hon. Friend is aware that our policy on television licence fees is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office made clear last Friday during a discussion on this matter, we are concerned, as is everyone in the House, about the existence of anomalies which give rise to a great deal of irritation. I appreciate that point. The simple way of getting rid of the anomalies by making free television licences available to all pensioners would be extremely costly and would in a way, create its own anomalies. It would mean that families which happened to have a pensioner living with them would benefit, whatever their income, at the expense of a family living on a very low income. I repeat the assurance which my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on Friday that the Home Department is considering providing cheap licences for black-and-white television for pensioners and getting rid of some of the anomalies.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the right non. Lady accept that if she made free television licences available to pensioners living on their own or with a spouse the anomaly to which she has referred would not arise? Is the right hon. Lady aware that there are many people who feel strongly that the problem of loneliness which old people now face could be reduced in this desirable way by spending a relatively small amount of money?

Mrs. Castle: Of course, the Government have examined that possibility. The concentrating of help on specific cases is a very obvious course to take. I can assure the hon. Lady that the matter is not as simple as all that. Even that step would not remove the difficulties. As I have said, the Home Office has made it clear that it is considering the matter again.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the right hon. Lady wandered a little far from Keighley and the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was treating the right hon. Lady more as a Prime Minister than as

a Secretary of State by asking her to visit his constituency?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would much prefer these points of order to be made at the end of Question Time. The right hon. Lady is responsible for her answer, I am not.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will publish a White Paper setting out in detail the effects of the latest cuts in public expenditure by her Department.

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I am not aware of any cuts of the kind the hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind.

Mr. Onslow: Does not the right hon. Lady think that it is about time she took the country into her confidence about the cuts which are being made piecemeal in such projecs as St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington and hospitals in Birmingham and Leeds? Does she not think that it is about time she joined the ranks of her colleagues who are trying to spell out to those who are responsible for much of our inflation that every fresh breach of the social contract means less money for the nation's health and welfare services?

Mrs. Castle: I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that I think it ill becomes any Conservative Member to use the word "cuts" about the future prospects of my Department. That is the suggestion that is coming from supporters of the then Tory Government which instituted the cuts of December 1973 and reduced my public expenditure programme for health and personal social services by £138 million. Conservative Members have no right to try to give the impression that we are facing cuts in my Department. In the current year we have already restored £100 million worth of that reduced expenditure. Some of it has been restored in national health services. It is true that we have said—and we must continue to say—that the growth in the expenditure of my Deparment can only be modest over the years ahead if we are to get on top of our economic difficulties. None the less, it would be misleading to suggest that there was anything but growth.

Mr. Skinner: Why should we have any cuts at all in public expenditure, whether in my right hon. Friend's Department or any other Department, while the Cabinet and the Government can seemingly find approximately £250,000 to satisfy the Queen?

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that that is not within the scope either of my Department or of the Question before the House. I must tell him that I am thinking in terms of expenditure in my Department of much more than £200,000.

Sir John Hall: In real terms, has the expenditure for which the right hon. Lady's Department is responsible been maintained or reduced?

Mrs. Castle: The expenditure for my Department, as the White Paper on Public Expenditure makes clear, reveals a situation of steady growth. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it is a position of real growth in real terms. This is an extremely important point. The figures I have given are based on real terms. Already this year the Government have added £600 million in Supplementary Estimates for my Department to cover the increases in pay and prices, and the inflation-proofing of the expenditure on the National Health Service which we have introduced, along with the marked improvement in the pay of the people working for the Service, has done a very great deal to restore the flagging morale of the NHS which I inherited.

Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make a statement on the future of the Birmingham and Midland Eye Hospital.

Dr. Owen: The region's capital programme for 1975–76 is not yet finalised, but it now seems certain that it cannot include replacement of the eye hospital. The regional health authority will consider the future of the hospital during its review of priorities for 1976–77 and subsequent years.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I was awaiting it with interest having listened to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the previous Question. Does my hon. Friend

accept that that answer will not be considered to be very satisfactory in the region, bearing in mind that the regional health authority has already spent £1½ million on laying out sewers and associated work and is now considering having to put it in an empty office block? Lastly, when can I expect a full answer to the Question which I asked on 4th February concerning this hospital?

Dr. Owen: I have a reply outstanding to my hon. Friend and I shall give it as soon as the information is available. I regret the delay. On the question of the need for the hospital there is no difference between us. This, like many other hospitals, definitely needs to be built. It is a question of the work already undertaken. The replacement of the eye hospital has been planned as about 11 weeks for ophthalmology and planned for the Queen Elizabeth site costing perhaps £20 million. That cannot be fitted into the programme for 1975–76.

Mr. Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will strike a chill throughout the West Midlands, where the decision by his Department to close this hospital, however temporarily, is regarded as callous?

Dr. Owen: I hope that when the public expenditure Estimates are next discussed in the House the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to argue for greater public expenditure. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped talking with two mouths. They are always against increases in public expenditure in general but want them in their own constituencies and want them in particular. They will carry more weight and conviction in the House, in the National Health Service and outside when they support increases in public expenditure across the board.

Charges for Services

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is her policy on increasing existing charges or introducing new charges in order to expand the social services to give greater help to those in greatest need.

Mrs. Castle: I do not believe that income from charges should play a larger


part in financing these services than it does at present.

Mr. Gow: Does the Secretary of State recall that the present basic prescription charge was fixed in April 1971 at 20p? Does she realise that in real terms that charge would have to be fixed at 30p today to match the 1971 figure? Does she realise that as we will be short of money for the health service every possible avenue for money for the social services needs to be examined?

Mrs. Castle: I am in no position to contest the hon. Gentleman's figures. He is merely proving that we are standing by our policy to phase prescription charges out of the National Health Service. That is our policy. In the same way, we refused to increase dental charges even when dental rates rose, thus continuing the policy to which we are committed. I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman on policy.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Lady explain how she will replace the revenue which at present she gets from private hospital beds?

Mrs. Castle: In exchange for the phasing out of private beds from the National Health Service I shall get more National Health Service beds.

Hospital Waiting Lists (Staffordshire)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients are on the waiting list of the North Staffordshire hospitals; what is the average delay in receiving treatment; what are the causes of delay; and whether she will make a statement.

Dr. Owen: Four thousand, five hundred and fifty-five at 31st December 1974. Waiting times differ between specialities, and during 1974 they varied between about 11 weeks for ophthalmology and 20 weeks for ENT. These figures are broadly comparable with the latest available figures for the West Midlands Region. I know of no particular difficulties affecting the waiting lists in North Staffordshire hospitals.

Mr. Golding: Do not these figures reveal the totally unnecessary discomfort and anxiety which is caused to a very large number of people in North Staffordshire? Will my hon. Friend ensure that

greater resources are allocated to North Staffordshire hospitals, which have long been neglected? In particular, will he make provision for the replacement and extension of geriatric facilities in my constituency?

Dr. Owen: The replacement of geriatric beds and the expansion of facilities, particularly acute rehabilitation services for geriatrics, stand very high in our assessment of priorities. I readily agree with my hon. Friend in that. Priorities within the region are primarily for the West Midlands Regional Authority itself.

Dr. Vaughan: One of the major causes of the long delays in admission to hospital is the large number of empty hospital beds. On any one day there are 75,000 beds empty. Further, there are more than 11,000 beds empty due to shortages of staff. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were to pay a little more attention to staffing problems rather than attacking private practice and pay beds, we might reduce the waiting lists.

Dr. Owen: The reasons for waiting lists are very complex, as the hon. Gentleman is probably the first in the House to know. Staffing is one of the factors. The most important factor of all was shortage of nursing staff. The pay of nurses was in a most disgraceful situation when we came into office. As a result of a very substantial award, following the Halsbury Report, of over £180 million, I think there are some signs that nursing recruitment is improving and that we will be able to staff more of our wards then we have done hitherto. This will make a contribution to reducing the waiting lists.

Chester (Hospitals)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will make an official visit to the hospitals in the city of Chester.

Dr. Owen: I have no plans for a visit to Chester at this time.

Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister of State aware that we are very upset that he has no plans to come to Chester? That aside, will he tell us whether the proposed new district general hospital has been delayed or cancelled and, if the latter,


whether he is prepared to make available, so as to bring up to date the existing hospitals, money which is not being spent because of the proposal for the new hospital?

Dr. Owen: In the current financial year works with a completed cost of over £¼ million have started or are planned to start for Chester hospitals. The works include a geriatric day hospital, an intensive therapy unit, and anaesthetic unit and the upgrading of a pharmacy. On the main question, the regional health authority reluctantly decided that design work on phase 2 of the West Cheshire hospital project should be suspended.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister of State aware that if he were to go a little further east and come to Macclesfield he would find the people in that area appalled at the attitude of his Department and of the Merseyside Regional Health Authority in their total ignorance of the need for a new district general hospital in Macclesfield? This has been planned for some 10 or 15 years. I gather from information that has come to me—I hope that the Minister is aware of this—that the project has been shelved indefinitely. Will he comment?

Dr. Owen: The project in Macclesfield and that in West Cheshire were both deeply affected by the capital expenditure cuts notified to the region in November 1973. No doubt both hon. Gentlemen voted against the cuts of 20 per cent. in capital expenditure imposed by the Tory Government at that time.

Family Allowances (Increase)

Mrs. Wise: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will take steps to raise social security entitlements so that parents receiving supplementary allowances are enabled to benefit from the increase in family allowances which is due in April.

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. It is the aim of this Government to replace means-tested benefits by benefits as of right wherever possible, and that is one of the purposes we have in mind in increasing family allowance.

Mrs. Wise: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that for those families which are receiving means-tested bene-

fits and which are actually on supplementary benefit her words will seem very pious indeed? Of course we would prefer the replacement of means-tested benefits. But the increase in family allowances will not improve the situation of the poorest families unless my right hon. Friend takes the steps suggested in my Question. On behalf of the poorest in our society, including the one-parent families, many of whom are on supplementary benefit, I ask her urgently to reconsider this matter if the increase in family allowances is to be more than a hollow joke for many poor families.

Mrs. Castle: I cannot agree that my hon. Friend's approach is the right one. We shall never get rid of means-tested benefits if every time we increase the benefits as of right we then say that we are going to increase the means-tested benefits on top. The correct way to deal with the problems of the families to which she refers is through proper and regular upratings of supplementary benefits. This is what we did in July. Those benefits will be uprated again this April and again later in the year. I assure my hon. Friend that she is—I am sure with the best motives in the word—leading us up a dangerous blind alley by saying that every time the family allowance rises this must be disregarded for supplementary benefit.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If the right hon. Lady really cares about family poverty, why does she refuse even to produce a Green Paper on family endowment? Is she aware that in the five-year forecasts of Government expenditure which have been referred to already this afternoon there is no provision for an increase in family allowances?

Mrs. Castle: A Green Paper is not necessary. The Government's proposals will be announced very shortly.

Disabled Persons (Petrol Costs)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what evidence she has of cases where disabled people are unable to continue in employment as they are unable to afford the petrol to get to and from work.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I have no details of any case


in which this has happened, although several people have written expressing concern about the possibility. If the hon. Member is aware of any such case, I hope that he will let me know.

Mr. Farr: Is the Minister aware of the special difficulty that faces disabled people who go to work in an Invacar in that they cannot engage in car-sharing schemes or in the pooling of journeys which their more able-bodied workmates can do? Does not this place those people at a disadvantage compared with workmates, and will the hon. Gentleman look into this special point?

Mr. Morris: Yes, I am very aware of the general concern about ways in which disabled people are affected by the recent increase in petrol prices. I shall bear the point very much in mind.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend give more serious thought to the suggestion which has been made to him and bear in mind that it is particularly hard for disabled people to meet the increased petrol cost? Will he also bear in mind that any increase in road tax will have an equally bad effect on disabled people who have to use larger cars than normal because they cannot drive smaller vehicles? Therefore, it will be a greater hardship for them to be able to go from A to B, to work or, indeed, to anywhere else.

Mr. Morris: I know of my hon. Friend's very close personal interest in these problems. I shall bear in mind all he has said. I am sure he will be pleased as I certainly was, that we were at least able to restore, and indeed double, the petrol allowance which was cancelled in the February 1972 announcement.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister accept that the standard car for the disabled driver is wholly unsuitable for long-distance journeys to work or outings? Is he aware that one of my constituents has given me figures suggesting that it is more expensive for him and for the taxpayer if he uses that type of car than, say, a standard mini car?

Mr. Morris: I am familiar with this type of criticism. If the hon. Gentleman likes to contact me about the particular case, I shall be glad to look into it again with him.

National Insurance (Self-employed Blind Persons)

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will introduce legislation to give relief from national insurance contributions for self-employed blind persons.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): No, Sir. A self-employed person with low earnings is already able to obtain exception from contribution liability but it would be wrong to deprive self-employed blind persons generally of their benefit rights by relieving them of contribution liability,

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there is a grey area and that there are people who are in the same situation as one of my constituents about whom I have corresponded with him—a self-employed person making wire brushes who, out of a net income of £900 per annum, has to find £125 to pay his national insurance contributions? Is not that typical of the way in which legislation hits unfairly at the self-employed, particularly those facing hardship such as the constituent I have mentioned?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right in his general remarks, and we have corresponded on the particular case he mentioned. He should bear in mind that if we were to accept the apparent attraction of his proposal we should be denying to his constituents the right to retirement pension, sickness benefit, widows' benefit, maternity grant and death grant.

Mr. Fowler: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) right in saying that this is a further example of the grave hardship caused by the Government's discrimination against the self-employed? Is he not aware of the intense public feeling on this issue? Will he, at this late stage, announce a Government response to this public feeling?

Mr. Jones: May I say with great respect to the hon. Gentleman that he is showing his ignorance in this case. In the case to which the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) referred, the constituent will from next April pay no increase in contributions.

Mid-Sussex (Hospital)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether she will make a statement on the possibility of a new general hospital being built in the Mid-Sussex area.

Dr. Owen: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the needs of the new Cuckfield and Crawley health district. He will be reassured to learn that a joint working party, consisting of representatives of the regional and area health authorities and the health district's management team, is now studying this district's immediate health needs and making long-term development plans.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that discussions about the new general hospital have been continuing for 10 years and that no firm plans have been made? Is he further aware that Mid-Sussex lies in a major growth area and that, on the basis of projected population growth, 760 new hospital beds will be needed in the area by 1981? Where are those beds to come from?

Dr. Owen: I am aware that there is an expansion in the population of the area concerned. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support for the increases in public expenditure for the hospital building programme that he seems to envisage.

Community Health Councils

Mr. Grocott: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she is satisfied that sufficient publicity is given to the membership and powers of the community health councils.

Dr. Owen: Community health councils are responsible for their own publicity, and I am satisfied that those which have been in operation for any length of time are generally discharging this responsibility very actively.

Mr. Grocott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the urgent need for proper democratic control in our National Health Service—an opportunity which was missed in the 1973 legislation—we need to take far more positive steps to publicise the activities of community health councils, which we are likely to

have to live with for a number of years, so that people are made aware of the fact that the NHS is their service and is, and should be, answerable to them?

Dr. Owen: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. We intend to try to increase the democracy in the National Health Service. We believe that the community health councils have a very important part to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services appointed two advisers on the community health councils who have produced a valuable report. We are in process of establishing a national council to be the national voice of the community health councils, and it will be the independent voice of the patient in arguing no doubt for extra resources for the health service.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (BROADCAST)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th February about the economic situation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leeds on Saturday 8th February on the economic situation represents Government policy.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th February, on the relationship between trade union action and mass unemployment, represents Government policy.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether the broadcast statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the social contract on 8th February represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ashley: Although it is difficult for the Labour benches to make constructive suggestions about the social contract because they would be exploited by an Opposition who are obsessively anti-trade


unionist, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that there are only three ways of combating a runaway inflation which may destroy the country: statutory control, which is completely unworkable; mass unemployment, which is totally unforgiveable; or the social contract, which is absolutely indispensable? If my right hon. Friend agrees with that assessment of the situation, will he warn the country in general, and trade unionists and industrialists in particular, that if the social contract fails statutory control or mass unemployment is inevitable?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, who obviously agrees with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the House and the country have learned, confrontations on statutory wage control lead to national disaster. I understand that since the last election the official Opposition now reject any sort of statutory pay control, but all of us have emphasised that the alternative to the social contract is the danger of greater unemployment.

Mr. Gardiner: This is one of a number of speeches from Ministers lately warning of the danger of further breaches of the social contract. Will the Prime Minister say whether, in his view, the country can afford the railwaymen, power workers and now the non-industrial civil servants to be given pay rises to match that given to the miners? If not, when will the Government do something to halt the situation?

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman asks has been made clear by my right hon. Friends and myself. There were, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said in his constituency, and as I said last week, special considerations in the case of the miners, including the question of recruitment. But if others were to regard that as an area also appropriate to them, there would be very serious consequences on the lines I have mentioned.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition are trying to give the impression that in this inflationary situation wages are the only factor? Why does he not tell them that in pure economic theory terms this is nonsense?

The Prime Minister: We have warned that this year, as opposed to last year,

the problem of industrial costs arising from wages is serious, or could be serious, in relation to further moves of inflation. But when we look over the past few years, we see that the main problem which the country faces—and here I agree with my hon. Friend—is the totally inadequate provision for industrial investment, particularly in the private sector and in relation to our exporting industries.

Mr. Lawson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech said that wage increases—trade union-organised wage settlements at the present level—threatened Britain with mass unemployment. Can the Prime Minister underline his right hon. Friend's sombre but realistic warning by answering in his usual straightforward manner two simple questions? First, roughly what numerical level does "mass unemployment" mean? Secondly, is it not the case that the commitment to full employment can no longer be regarded by the Government as absolute under the terms of the social contract?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have emphasised the importance of keeping the expected increase in unemployment, which we inherited—those were the figures we were given—to the minimum. At that time the forecasts and prognosis were for 1 million unemployed this winter. That has not happened, and we are fighting hard to prevent any further increase. I would certainly regard that figure as the kind of thing my right hon. Friend was warning against. But I have noticed from important Opposition statements recently that there appears to be a tendency to discount the importance of unemployment, because the figures are not very accurate. We reject the approach of the Conservative Front Bench on this matter.

Mr. Peyton: What the Prime Minister has not said yet is how we are to avoid the disaster which his colleagues have foretold.

The Prime Minister: First, by avoiding the disaster of 2 million unemployed, which the policies of the right hon. Gentleman's party brought last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] There were 2 million unemployed exactly a year ago today as a result of policies that the whole Tory Front Bench then supported. The right hon. Gentleman asked about


the future. He wants to forget the past—I understand that—as does his Front-Bench neighbour the Leader of the Opposition. My answer with regard to the future was set out in the statement of my right hon. Friend in the broadcast referred to and in all the policies of Her Majesty's Government within the social contract.

Mr. Thorpe: I welcome the refreshing realism of the Chancellor's speech, but can the Prime Minister say, against the pattern of the social contract, whether he regards the miners' settlement as being the exception or the rule to be followed in the future?

The Prime Minister: I answered that question last week, but I shall answer it again. I expressed my agreement with my right hon. Friend, and the answer is "the exception".

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: May we have it at the end of Questions? I have no power to direct the hon. Gentleman, but I would prefer to hear his point of order at the end of Questions.

Mr. Skinner: You did not say that to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET COMMITTEES

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he will now answer Questions concerning the membership of Cabinet committees.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Tebbit: As the Prime Minister has referred to a Cabinet committee in a public speech outside the House, and as he has told the world at large that the purpose is to control the Secretary of State for Industry, should he not say what are its powers and who are its members, so that the world can judge whether they will be able to control the Secretary of State?

The Prime Minister: What I did in that speech was to follow precedent in a speech to a distinguished industrial audience in Liverpool representing both sides of industry. The hon. Gentleman must be responsible for his interpretation

of the speech, because I said no such thing as he has suggested. I indicated, as I have done before in the House, that I was chairman of a particular committee and that the Treasury was powerfully represented. That is a perfectly normal thing to say. I did not set out all the members, and it is not the practice to do so.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anything the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) wants to know, most of us do not want to know?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Friday 7th February in Liverpool on the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Stanley: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Liverpool on the Industry Bill to the Merseyside Productivity Board on 7th February.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 10th February.

Mr. Huckfield: But as Sir Don Ryder is to report to my right hon. Friend, does that mean that the National Enterprise Board will be in any way less interventionist? What did my right hon. Friend say to the Confederation of British Industry at that famous meeting of the board when the Director-General of the CBI came away saying that he felt happier?

The Prime Minister: The matter is still before Parliament, in a Bill which has only just received its Second Reading. The board will be responsible to the industrial Department concerned. What I did in that speech was to repeat what I have said many times: that the Bill, and its operation when it becomes an Act, will follow exactly the White Paper which was published before the election and which was so manifestly acceptable to the British people, as shown in the way they voted last October.

Mr. Stanley: As the Prime Minister said in that speech that the effect of


the Industry Bill would not be to concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, will he explain why it is that under the Bill the Secretary of State has power to spend £700 million of public money to buy shares in industrial companies, without a reference to Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Despite the fact that, as I said, I went to the great trouble of putting a copy of that speech in the Library on 10th February, I am sorry to note that the hon. Gentleman has not read it. I did not say any of the things that he attributed to me. I said then that the operation set out in the White Paper will be carried out, although all expenditure voted by the House is under the control of the Treasury, not to mention that rarely mentioned Minister the First Lord of the Treasury, who happens to be involved in these matters. That is what I said. It was nothing like what the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend send to the Merseyside Productivity Board, and then to the CBI, a copy of the third in his series of Edinburgh speeches in 1973, in which he called for the full disclosure to workers of the ownership and control of companies?

The Prime Minister: The speech to which my hon. Friend refers, which I think was made at Blackpool, is well known to all my constituents on Merseyside. Many of them have read it in full.

Mr. Heseltine: The Prime Minister said that the Bill will reflect the White Paper, and the White Paper says that companies can be taken over only by agreement and as a result of a full parliamentary process. What part of the Bill reflects either of those two safeguards?

The Prime Minister: This is the concept of the Bill—

Mr. Heseltine: It is not.

Mr. Stanley: Read the Bill.

The Prime Minister: Of course I have read the Bill. This is the concept of the Bill. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is one of the matters which I discussed with the CBI and which I shall discuss again tomorrow. If there is any doubt from the drafting of the Bill

whether the things I said on Merseyside and what we said in the White Paper are in question, those matters can be considered in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But all along I have said that this is how the Bill will operate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to spend all his time trying to pretend that it is a different Bill from what it is, we are prepared to discuss it with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 18th February.

Mr. Latham: How much longer will the right hon. Lady be allowed to spend £550 million of taxpayers' money to advantage the average person with food subsidies of 22½p a week?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood the facts and how much bigger last year's rapid increase in food prices would have been but for the food subsidies. The hon. Gentleman, who presumably was elected last October, will realise that he fought the last election, as did his Front Bench, on the pledge to maintain food subsidies.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the food subsidy programme is excellent and useful for the poor, it will be of little avail if the increases in electricity and gas prices remove their capacity to spend enough on food? Like most hon. Members, I am anxious that that should not be the case and that the subsidy principles being applied to food should also be applied to provide help for the poor in paying the charges of the nationalised industry sector.

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which we all share. I heard my hon. Friend speak on the subject in a meeting upstairs last week. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget—this cannot be criticised by the Conservatives, because


they said that they would do it more than a year ago, and never did—that we believed it right to have realistic pricing in the publicly-owned industries. No one is pressing this point more than the trade unions in those industries, because they believe that it is demoralising to have in the pricing of the publicly-owned industries the kind of situation we have had in the past. Furthermore, as I am always having party conference decisions brought to my attention—as though I did not already know them by heart—there was a decision at our last party conference in October 1973, and that resolution, which was passed unanimously, called for just what we are doing in relation to the prices of nationalised industries.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, on a point of order.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Hon Members: Get on with it.

An Hon Member: Order.

Mr. Skinner: It is your job to get order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that Question No. Q1 was identical to several other Questions on the Order Paper, including Question No. Q16 in my name. It is the custom and practice that the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, can link Questions together as he pleases, and this is a matter over which you have no control. It is the usual practice for Questions up to, say, No. Q10 to be linked in that manner, but you have said on occasions from the Chair, presumably when it has suited you—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it obviously did not suit you today—that on these occasions if a preponderance of hon. Members on the Opposition benches asked similar Questions you would pay attention to the linking of identical Questions lower down on the Order Paper.
It crosses my mind that as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was suffering somewhat from the attacks being made upon him by the Opposition the balance was not as well adjusted as it might have been in his defence from the Government side of the House—not that that might have happened. It is import-

ant when you make, not rulings but the kind of conventions that you have made from the Chair, that you should try to apply them fairly and evenly to both sides of the House irrespective of the individual hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member has any allegations to make against the Chair he should do it in the appropriate manner by a motion. Otherwise, I will give his observations the attention which I think they deserve.

NORTH SEA OIL (PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX)

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about petroleum revenue tax.
On Second Reading of the Oil Taxation Bill I indicated that any relief for marginal fields would be decided in the light of the consultations with the oil companies launched on 19th November. Following these consultations the Government have decided that safeguards for the marginal fields will be of two kinds. First, there will be a discretionary provision in the Petroleum Bill to refund royalties in whole or in part. Any refund of royalties will be free of PRT and corporation tax.
Secondly, there will be a non-discretionary provision within the tax system. In considering what form the provision should take we have paid careful attention to the various suggestions put forward by the spokesmen of the companies themselves, and our proposals follow some of those suggestions, though I do not claim that they go as far.
The non-discretionary provision will contain two elements. First, under the present PRT provisions of the Bill an uplift of 50 per cent.on capital expenditure is allowed in lieu of interest; we propose an additional 25 per cent., making a total uplift of 75 per cent., all of which can be claimed in the first year of tax liability. This will give the industry a further element of front-end loading, that is revenue free of PRT, which will help it to recover capital early in the life of the field.
Secondly, we propose an oil allowance per field of 1 million tons of oil a year,


which will be free of PRT, subject to a cumulative total of 10 million tons per field. That is to say, in each chargeable period of six months, an allowance in money terms equivalent to half a million tons will be available to set against PRT liability.
These provisions will of course benefit all fields, not merely marginal fields, in exempting a substantial tranche of their revenue from PRT, and to that extent giving them a more secure prospect of return on their investment. But, since the tonnage allowance is the same for large fields and small, it will be of proportionately greater benefit to the latter, and we have had this in mind in adapting the suggestions received from the industry.
I believe that these provisions will help us to fix a rate of PRT with greater security that it will leave the companies an adequate rate of return. I am, of course, fully seized of the fact that a change in the price of oil relative to price levels generally could have a profound effect on profitability. I therefore made it clear on Second Reading, and I take this opportunity to reaffirm, that the Government will stand ready to review and adjust the incidence of PRT in the event of a sustained and significant change in the price of oil in real terms.
I have given careful thought to the representations made that there should be some more automatic protection against a fall in the oil price and a consequential reduction in revenues. We therefore propose that there should be a safeguard provision that to the extent that in any year the PRT charge reduces the return on a field before corporation tax to less than 30 per cent. of capital expenditure measured on the basis of historic cost, that charge will be cancelled. There will be a tapering provision above 30 per cent.
These non-discretionary provisions will be introduced at the Report stage of the Oil Taxation Bill.
I come now to the rate of tax. I had originally envisaged that the rate of PRT would be enacted in the spring Finance Bill. However, now that the timetable allows this, I propose that it be incorporated in the Oil Taxation Bill. In considering the rate, we have in mind two objectives. First, we must ensure that the Government, on behalf of the British

people, secure sufficient overall revenue and sufficient benefit to the balance of payments from this raw material asset. Secondly, we must ensure for the companies an adequate return on capital and an adequate incentive for further development and exploration so as to ensure that the oil continues to flow. In the light of these considerations we propose a rate of PRT of 45 per cent.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is evident that the Paymaster-General has listened with a good deal of care and understanding to the views of the industry. Is he aware that we are glad to see that he now accepts unequivocally the need both for an adequate return on capital investment and for adequate incentives for development and exploration? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals in the statement, coupled with the other substantial amendments which have been made or promised, represents a considerable improvement in the Bill as it was introduced?
Is it not equally clear that the right hon. Gentleman's task in devising a variable tax on windfall profits has been made far more difficult than necessary by his clinging to the wholly inappropriate flat-rate prior charge field-by-field structure that is in the Bill?
As 1 million tons a year is equal to no more than 20,000 barrels a day, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is only the tiniest fields that are likely to be exempt from PRT under his relief? I accept that the Paymaster-General's purpose is to achieve both profitability and incentives for the industry, but is he aware that we entertain serious doubts whether his reliefs are adequate and whether they will be enough to restore confidence to an industry in which confidence has been badly shaken by the Oil Taxation Bill as originally introduced?

Mr. Dell: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say anything that will reduce confidence in the future of this country's oil industry by attaching himself to any claim, however extravagant, made by the oil companies.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we had now accepted unequivocally the argument that the oil companies must have a reasonable rate of return. We have from the beginning accepted that


unequivocally. It was for that reason that on 19th November I called the oil companies into consultation, a consultation that has gone on since. The object of that was to ensure that we had the right facts on which to base our decisions.
The right hon. Member says that the task of making provision for marginal fields had been made far more difficult by the structure of the tax. That is not the case. I am sure that the provision we are making is adequate for the marginal fields. Many fields will be largely relieved of PRT, particularly the smaller fields, and in considering the problem of marginal fields one has to look to the future at least as much as to existing fields. As a result of this concession, exploration in future fields which may be smaller than some of those so far discovered will be encouraged.

Mr. Atkinson: The method used by my right hon. Friend in presenting his statement and the basis of the calculations he has presented to the House suggest that the price of oil will be left to free market considerations under commercial conditions. Does he accept that the Labour Party is committed to having regulated and controlled prices of oil in very strictly controlled conditions? Will he therefore now give confidence to the Labour movement rather than to the commercial oil market by saying that he is to carry out the provisions of our manifesto and insist, for as far as the future can tell, on complete regulation in oil prices?

Mr. Dell: I am sure that the manifesto is being carried out completely. Of course these decisions are based on the assumption of market prices and the safeguard provisions; and the marginal field provisions, are to take care of possible changes in real terms of market prices.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Paymaster-General accept that we on this bench have consistently held the view that there should be a direct relationship between the revenue-raising potential of the oil and the funding of the Scottish Development Agency? When will the Government bring forward proposals on that score?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Member knows, the proposals for the SDA will be brought forward shortly.

Mr. Dalyell: Has not Burmah taught us that the cash flow position is absolutely critical in the rate of oil exploitation? Will my right hon. Friend say precisely what he means by the recovery of capital "early in the life of a field"? What does "early in the life of a field" mean in the case of marginal fields?

Mr. Dell: In the case of marginal fields, as in other fields, 175 per cent. of the capital expenditure will be offset against revenue before PRT makes any impact on the field. In addition there will then be the oil allowance. The companies are given front-end loading, that is to say they are relieved at a very early stage of their capital liabilities before they pay PRT, and this should be of great assistance to them and also a great encouragement to future development.

Mr. John Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to do so this afternoon, will he be kind enough to make available to the House subsequently a comparison of the net effect of tax and cost in respect of a million-barrel-a-day field sited in Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States?

Mr. Dell: I shall certainly look at the right hon. Gentleman's question and see what help I can give him.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: What benefits will the regions of high unemployment in England get from the oil revenue?

Mr. Dell: I trust that one of the effects of this tax and of the discovery of these raw material resources will be to give some impetus to the British economy, with beneficial effects on employment generally.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister accept that his statement about concessions to the international oil companies will be greeted with considerable horror and anger in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Will he further indicate his estimate of the revenues to be expected at a production of 150 million tons at current prices on current rates of corporation tax and taking account of the rate of PRT which he has just announced?
Does he accept that the 30 per cent. guaranteed rate of return is far too high, particularly in present circumstances? The 50 per cent. uplift which was previously proposed would have led in certain fields to capital investment being repaid


over two or three years' production. Does he accept that the situation has been worsened by his proposal to increase this uplift in interest to 75 per cent.?

Mr. Dell: I cannot believe that the people of Scotland will greet this announcement with horror and anger. On the contrary, the people of Scotland are as aware as people anywhere else in Britain that it is necessary that the oil should flow before we get any tax revenue out of it, and the measures I have announced today will assist that to happen.
The hon. Member asked for an estimate of revenues on the basis of certain figures of oil production in—I take it—the 1980s. He will understand that in the early years the revenue from North Sea oil will be relatively small but growing fast. In the early 1980s, at a figure of 100 million tons, it should be £2,000 million or £3,000 million. Of course, the higher the production the greater the consequent revenues. However, all figures in this respect must be treated with some caution because they depend, first, on the price of oil and, secondly, on the cost of exploration and development. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we wait to see what we get before relying on it too much.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that whatever the reactions in Scotland, many English Members will see this as giving in to the wealthy oil companies? Is he aware that his action is similar in pattern to giving in to the office property people—ending the freeze on office rents—and to the landowners on CTT? Does he agree that this is not in keeping with the concluding paragraph in our election manifesto which talked of a great and irreversible switch from rich to poor and of greater equality in our country? I understand the pressure to which my right hon. Friend has been subjected, but we seem to be giving in all down the line, and the Labour movement must resist that.

Mr. Dell: By this tax we are trying to achieve a great and irreversible switch of profits from the oil companies to the British Government. However, it is necessary to ensure that the oil flows and we have to accept that the oil companies must make a reasonable return

on their investment. That is all that we have done. We have established a reasonable sharing between the British people and the companies which are doing the work and on whose expertise we continue to rely.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Minister aware that the most important thing he has said has been his reference to the necessity to get the oil flowing, and one of the main factors in delaying things in the North Sea and in other areas such as Canada has been the sheer uncertainty surrounding so much of the operation. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that every effort will be made to expedite the further negotiations with the oil companies over participation? Does he not agree that the simplest way of getting things going and of enabling the companies to raise money would be to bring forward these proposals as quickly as possible even if he is unable to drop them entirely, which is what he should do?

Mr. Dell: Every effort will be made to expedite progress on participation. The hon. Member referred to uncertainty. One of the objectives of our handling of the Oil Taxation Bill, in conducting the talks concurrently with the legislative process, has been precisely to reduce the period of uncertainty. We should now be able to complete this measure in a period of four months which I think is a considerable contribution to reducing uncertainty in this area.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend proceed according to the earlier consultations with the oil companies and ensure that there is no further delay or dithering with regard to North Sea development? Will my right hon. Friend agree that the green light he has given is at least adequate, even though the Opposition think that the oil companies should be given even more?

Mr. Dell: We wish to see North Sea development going ahead fast. The evidence we have suggests that it is going ahead as fast as is practicable. There are many causes of delay, some of which are due to natural circumstances—such as the North Sea in which the development is going ahead. It is our objective that it should go ahead as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember saying in Committee, during the discussions on the Oil Taxation Bill on 10th January, that marginality was not a question of petroleum revenue tax alone and that corporation tax represented a large proportion of the burden that companies would have to pay? Does the right hon. Gentleman's statement today rule out any possible change in the rules governing the disallowance of interest for corporation tax purposes, for example? Does he realise that the concessions he has announced today in an inflationary era are no substitute for the disallowance of interest, and that interest burdens increase progressively with inflation, while concessions on capital decrease progressively?

Mr. Dell: We are looking very carefully at the arguments advanced in Committee on the Oil Taxation Bill regarding interest and in respect of corporation tax. We have had further consultations with the companies on that point. We shall be coming to a decision on it in time for Report. Since marginality is not simply a matter of petroleum revenue tax, we have introduced into our scheme the possibility of a discretionary refunding of royalties free of PRT and corporation tax. I think that the discretionary power in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in consultation with the Treasury, will suffice to help any marginal field that should be developed.

Mr. English: In the course of his negotiations on this subject, did my right hon. Friend make it plain to the oil companies that the Government would not go back on their commitment to 51 per cent. participation? Is he aware that Government supporters will take a much more lenient view on taxation if they know that control of the subsidies means that the revenue taxable cannot be shifted around?

Mr. Dell: There is a commitment to 51 per cent. participation, of which the oil companies are aware. The strategy we are following requires that the British people's share of the profits will be obtained by taxation. The participation negotiations are directed to securing greater control.

Mr. Skeet: Does the Minister accept the proposition which the Government have put forward that the oil companies' profit will be the same on 49 per cent. participation as though they had 100 per cent. control?

Mr. Dell: In so far as we think it right to take a share of the profits—and we do—that course will be achieved by taxation. The participation negotiations are related to the control of the oil and the operation.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will be regarded by the Labour movement with a great deal of concern? Some would go so far as to consider that this is little short of a sell-out in response to the blackmail which has gone on for a considerable time by the oil firms both within and outside this country. Will my right hon. Friend answer this more detailed question? When we consider that the 45 per cent. will be offset by the capital allowance of 175 per cent., and then by the £1 million allocation to assist the marginal fields, overall, what will the amount of tax be in relation to those offsets, taking them into account over the period of the first five years' operation? Will the figure be much nearer 30 per cent. than 45 per cent.?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend says that there will be a great deal of concern. However, he must remember that in addition to PRT there will be corporation tax at 52 per cent. and royalty at 12½ per cent. As a result of the rate of PRT which I have just announced, estimating the proportion of the revenues in a field which the Government will take, and accepting that that will vary from field to field because marginal fields have a lower take while other fields have a higher take, I estimate that the average over the next 10 years will probably be of the order of 70 per cent. I do not think that that figure should lead to concern.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the vindictive and spiteful attitude of the Scottish National Party to the oil companies does not represent the views of the people of Scotland, who will welcome the statement of the concessions


he has made? Has he evidence, which I believe exists, that if the burden of taxation is unreasonably high, the oil will not flow and jobs and prosperity will disappear?

Mr. Dell: It is necessary that the burden of taxation shall not be unreasonably high. We have had that in mind in fixing the rate of tax, which, at this level, we think is right. On the basis of our estimates, founded on figures provided by the companies, we think that this leaves the companies a reasonable rate of return which will enable them to continue their development and exploration work, which is essential if the oil is to continue to flow.

CONSPIRACY (AMENDMENT)

3. 57 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the maximum sentence which may be imposed on any person convicted of conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum sentence which could have been imposed if he had committed the crime which he was charged with conspiring to commit; and for connected purposes.
I ask the House to bear with me if I stick very closely to my notes so as to avoid unnecessary delay.
The object of the Bill is to seek the authority of the House to present a measure which would reform the law of conspiracy. This is necessary and urgent, and is required to reassert the authority of Parliament.
Conspiracy is not a crime defined in any Act of Parliament. It was invented in the time of King James I by the Court of Star Chamber. Generally speaking, the law of conspiracy is in need of reform in general. It makes into a crime, very often, acts which if committed by a single individual would not be criminal. This is a matter which requires to be dealt with urgently by legislation. However, the object of the Bill, for which leave is sought to introduce, is much more limited.
The Long Title refers to the maximum sentence which may be imposed in cases of conspiracy. It seems extraordinary that an attempt to commit a crime, or even an agreement to participate in it, irrespective of whether the crime was committed or not, should be more severely punished than the crime itself, if committed.
It is an insult to the authority of Parliament that any outside body, even the judges, should be able to pass heavier sentences for attempting to commit a crime if that crime was alleged to have been part of a conspiracy, when Parliament has fixed a maximum penalty for the crime itself.
The matter has been brought to a head by the sentences passed in the so-called Shrewsbury conspiracy trial. In that trial, as in an equally important case in


trade union history—that of the Tolpuddle Martyrs—the accused were sentenced for conspiracy. In the Shrewsbury case they were charged with conspring to intimidate.
Under Section 7 of the 1875 Act, intimidation is an offence for which a maximum penalty of imprisonment is laid down,
… for a term not exceeding three months.
Once a defendant is charged under this section, not with intimidation but with conspiring to contravene the statute, he is placed entirely at the judge's mercy and could be sentenced to life imprisonment if the judge so decided. At the Shrewsbury Crown Court, one of those charged, Dennis Warren, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for conspiring to intimidate "lump" labourers, a punishment 12 times heavier than the maximum for direct intimidation provided by the statute. The object of this modest Bill is to limit the judge's power of sentencing to that which Parliament has laid down for the commission of the offence itself.
I suggest that it is illogical and absurd that if someone intimidates a worker contrary to the law, he or she, in accordance with the law laid down by this Parliament, is subject to a maximum penalty of only three months' imprisonment, whereas he or she can be sentenced to three years' imprisonment for attempting in concert with other people to carry out the same intimidation, quite irrespective of whether anyone was intimidated.
This absurdity has come prominently to light because it has affected industrial relations, but it could equally affect the most ordinary cases of trivial offences where two or more people agreed to commit them. There was such a case, Regina v. Blamires Transport Services, in which two people stopped, could not find a parking meter, and broke the Road Traffic Act by their action. They conspired together in that they agreed that they would pay the fine if a fine arose from their act. In those circumstances—this is not a hypothetical case—it was affirmed that a penalty of life imprisonment could have been imposed by the judge.
I am more concerned to examine how the Conspiracy Act has been applied and how conspiracy generally has been applied in regard to trade unions and social and political agitation generally. I remind the House that in 1872 the gas workers organised a strike and were convicted under this head because they persuaded other workers not to work. This gave rise, as we know, to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which abolished the crime of criminal conspiracy in all trade disputes except where the act committed was itself criminal—that is to say, a factory was burned down or damage to property occurred.
Since that time, however, the judges, determined not to be defeated, have decided that the Act abolished only criminal conspiracy and that there remained a civil liability for conspiracy to pay damages to the employer who was injured or otherwise molested. Under this ruling, for example, in 1895 trade unions which posted up blacklists of blackleg workers who did not join a strike were made liable for conspiracy to injure. However, it is typical of the bias shown by the courts in these matters that in 1892 and 1902 the circulation of lists of strikers and troublemakers by employers' associations was held not to be a civil wrong because the employers were defending their legitimate self-interest. In the same way, in 1892 traders who undercut competitors were held not liable, and in 1942 in the famous crofters' case a similar decision was taken.
The main case against the law on conspiracy, however, is that it is not used against major conspiracy. The recent Loyalist strike in Northern Ireland was denounced by the Prime Minister himself as an attempt at intimidation, and undoubtedly important political personalities could have been indicted for conspiracy for their part in organising the intimidation and the violence which accompanied the strike in question. No such action was taken. But conspiracy remains as a weapon of the employer against the employee and of the Government whose decisions may be the source of agitation by combinations of people with different value orientations.
It is against this background that I seek the leave of the House to introduce the short Bill which I have described.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?

Mr. Mather: I do, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has attempted to blind us with legal points. He is not a lawyer, any more than I am. He was simply reading from a brief. However, I wish to put my opposing arguments in my own way.
The object of the Bill is to nullify the common law offence of conspiracy. As the hon. Gentleman said, it arises from the case of the Shrewsbury pickets and the imprisonment of Warren and Tomlinson for two and three years respectively.
What the hon. Gentleman does not realise fully is that, if the conspiracy charge had not been made and the two men had been tried on the 39 out of 42 other counts on which they were arraigned, far greater sentences could have been imposed, and probably would have been, on the grounds of intimidation and assault.
As I see it, what the hon. Gentleman is not doing is to claim the rights of pickets to go about their business peacefully. He seems to be claiming the right that they should be allowed to picket violently when the need arises, using whatever degree of force to obtain their ends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
As the trial judge pointed out, there is the right to picket peacefully. But other freedoms and rights are also involved. There is the right for men to work if they wish to. There is the right for them to refuse to withdraw their labour if they wish to continue doing their work. There is the right to go about their work freely without fear of intimidation—

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the practice to have points of order either way during the introduction of a Ten-Minute Bill.

Mr. Buchan: I accept that. Nevertheless, may I raise a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is, I prefer not until afterwards.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry to do this. It is the first time that I have done it during the 10 years that I have been a Member of this House. But this is an important point of order.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. Buchan: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) was given leave to oppose the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). However, the hon. Gentleman is speaking about another matter altogether. No longer is he linking his remarks to the Bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the House to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly it is in order. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is developing an argument against the Bill. The quality of that argument or its precise relevance are not matters for me, unless the hon. Gentleman is talking about some completely different topic which is utterly irrelevant. At the moment, I cannot rule the hon. Member for Esher out of order.

Mr. Mather: I confirm that what I was saying was absolutely on the topic of the discussion. The hon. Member for Preston, South referred specifically to the Shrewsbury pickets.
I deal with the Bill on three grounds—the ground of fact, the ground of law and the ground of motive. On the matter of fact, the offences of September 1972 are well known and hardly bear repeating. A brief repetition should be made on this occasion. This is what eye-witnesses saw:
The men entered the sites in what was described as a mad swarm. They were shouting, 'Kill the bastards.' They also shouted, 'This is a revolution and not a strike'.
One man was threatened to have his legs broken if he resisted. Another man was pulled off his ladder, hit his head and was in hospital for eight days with severe concussion. Others were attacked with bricks, were stoned—[Interruption.]—and hit with iron bars. Buildings were smashed, huts demolished and windows broken. Equipment was broken up and overturned and—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Mather: —a compressor was launched downhill, narrowly missing a man.

Mr. Skinner: I hesitate to rise because there have been occasions when I have strayed from the point, whatever debate I have been taking part in. I must draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that for most of the time that the hon. Member has been speaking he has been completely out of order in that he has not been speaking about the Bill. It is important that you devote your mind to that.

Mr. John Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has developed a welcome tradition for points of order which are sought to be raised during Question Time to be taken at the end of that period. Would it not be appropriate for those who seek to raise points of order during the debate on a Ten-Minute Bill to reserve their points of order until the conclusion of the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly thought that that was the convention of the House. I do not think that I have known more than one or two occasions in my 29 years here when points of order have been raised during Ten-Minute Bills. It is an undesirable practice. As the point has been raised I will try to deal with it. I have to decide on the degree of irrelevance which I think requires me to intervene. Whether the argument is strictly relevant and whether it arises out of the same matter as the Bill, is a matter for me to decide. The hon. Member has not yet gone so far that I can or will say he is out of order.

Mr. Mather: This matter needs to be put in absolutely clear and unmistakeable terms. We have the story put over by the opposite side of the House. It is time for the true facts to be given. Never in the history of picketing have such violent scenes taken place in this country.
On the matter of law, six men were tried on three counts of conspiracy to intimidate, unlawful assembly and affray. Tomlinson and Warren were found guilty of all three, although Tomlinson faced 30 other counts and Warren 39 other counts of assault and intimidation. On appeal the first two were upheld and the third

quashed on a point of law. The conspiracy element is commonly used in such cases to accentuate the degree of criminality of the crime.
Continuing on the matter of law, the hon. Gentleman may wish to pray in aid the Law Commission's Report No. 50. It will be noted that the report is critical of conspiracy for unlawful acts and civil wrongs such as fraud and indecency. But it is not critical of conspiracy when it is a question of committing a criminal offence. In any case this was issued only as a discussion paper. If the hon. Member has this in mind he is wilfully misunderstanding the report.
I come now to the question of motive. I have to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the hon. Gentleman is well known as an extreme Left winger. He has been prominent in opposing the defence cuts and he has got into trouble—not only with his Front Bench, but also with his constituents, particularly those working for BAC. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not on trial."] The hon. Member is also one of the leading opponents of the increases in the Civil List and is also a leading member of the "Troops Out" campaign and took—[Interruption.]—part in the IRA rally in London on 27th October, when 9 were arrested and 14 were subsequently charged with conspiracy.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will listen to the hon. Member quietly. When it is the other way round the noise is just as great on the other side; in either case, it is to be deprecated.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a deliberate assassination. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) is embarking on a deliberate campaign of character assassination. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a disgrace to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not have it said in this House that it is character assassination to say of an hon. Member that he presses for defence cuts.

Mr. Mather: The hon. Member is well known for these activities, and this has to be said. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are you well known for?"] One of the hon. Member's right hon. Friends has alluded to these pickets as the "iron bar squad". These are the people the hon.


Member extols. On grounds of motive alone, this Bill should go no further. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's motives are strictly correct and proper. I know that the Bill will�ž

Mr. Speaker: I must call the hon. Member to order. I do not think he is entitled to impute an improper motive.

Mr. Cryer: Exactly my point.

Mr. Mather: If I inadvertently did so, I withdraw. This is a question which should be decided by the Government. It

is a matter of law and is not something for us to decide here. I do not propose to divide the House today—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are pressing me to do so. In the circumstances it would be right for me to do so.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 166.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

Hon. Members: Shocking.

Mr. Jenkin: By the time I have finished, I think that hon. Members opposite will agree that we are right.
It is almost exactly a year since the Secretary of State entered upon his high office and it is time that he was called to account. It has been a year which has seen the world price of oil forced inexorably upwards; a year in which the United Kingdom's oil deficit may have exceeded £3,500 million; a year in which most of the developed world has embarked on a major expansion of nuclear power; and a year in which in many parts of the world the prospects for oil and gas exploration have become brighter and activity has greatly intensified. Such places as Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, India, offshore Canada and the United States are attracting intensive activity. It has been a year in which the potential outlook for the United Kingdom's coal industry has been dramatically enhanced. I stress the word "potential" because the reality already looks a little shaky. It has been a year in which the world has had to begin to learn how to save energy, how to use it more rationally, how to use it more efficiently.
It has by any standards been a challenging year. How has the Government's energy policy measured up to the challenge? How does the right hon. Gentleman's balance sheet stand? Although some of my remarks will be critical of the Government and their policy, I want to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, because what we need to do is to strike a balance.
On the credit side—and I say this unhesitatingly and unstintingly—the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have

taken major steps to move towards a system of rational energy pricing throughout the economy, and we support that. Indeed, it was foreshadowed by my noble Friend Lord Barber, as he now is, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement in December 1973. All I ask in relation to that, addressing myself to the Government back benches, is what the Labour Party's reaction would have been if it had been a Conservative Government which had had to take these hard decisions. I should like Labour Members to examine their consciences on that.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Some hon. Members who were then on the Opposition benches opposed the previous subsidy policy introduced by the Conservative Government from the very beginning, and I was one of them.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I wonder what the reaction of most of his hon. Friends below the Gangway would have been if we had tried to take those hard decisions.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has taken a major step to bring justice to the sufferers of pneumoconiosis, hitherto neglected by Governments of all parties. The Bill is going through the House, and it has our support.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman took a firm and clear decision on the choice of nuclear reactors. It was an extraordinarily complex and difficult decision, and it required courage. It was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, an act of faith, and therefore I do not grudge the Secretary of State his due.
But whatever credit the right hon. Gentleman may claim for the successes of his energy policy, they are massively outweighed by the failures that are plain for all to see. The crumbling North Sea oil programme, the stagnating nuclear programme, the astonishingly lethargic approach to energy saving and energy research, the speed with which price rises in the coal industry have gobbled up the headroom created by the rise in oil prices—these are the chilly results of the right hon. Gentleman's year in office; it is on these that he and his policies stand condemned.
Before I catalogue the details of these charges there is one separate matter


with which I must deal, and that refers to the 20 per cent. holding in BP sold by the Burmah Oil Company to the Bank of England. There are two distinct aspects of this affair which merit examination.
The first is whether Burmah shareholders are entitled to share in the profits which the Bank has made—profits which stand at more than £100 million. It is not for me to intervene between Burmah shareholders and the directors of the company—and I understand that there is a possibility of legal action—but it is very much the concern of the House and of the Opposition to see that public bodies behave honourably and fairly.
All the indications are that the Bank of England was, and remains, prepared to enter into an arrangement to share the profit with the company, and all the indications are that it was the Government who killed the idea. That was confirmed in a Written Answer on Friday in answer to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter):
The Government considered that this arrangement was fair both to the shareholders and to the taxpayer".—[Official Report, 21st February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 561.]
The right hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that thousands of small shareholders in the company, pension funds and institutional investors take a very different view. There is a deep sense of outrage that although the Bank is ready to recognise the harsh effect of what has happened the Government should forbid it to do anything about the situation.
It may be that the matter will be tested in the courts. Whatever the outcome—and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be aware of this—the episode will have done lasting damage to the credibility and independence of the Bank of England as a lender of last resort.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what his attitude would have been had the stock market fallen during the subsequent period?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a hypothetical question, because it did not. In fact, it rose substantially.
Even more serious is the confusion about what is to happen about the BP shares. The House will know that when the shares were bought the Bank, on behalf of the Government, gave a pledge to the Takeover Panel—and I quote from the Financial Times of 24th January—that
It is not Her Majesty's Government's intention that this transaction should change in any way the existing arrangements between the Government and BP and that, accordingly, while the stock in question remains in the Bank's hands, Her Majesty's Government will not exercise a greater proportionate voting power in relation to other shareholders than they could have exercised hitherto.
The statement went on to say that the panel had ruled that in these circumstances there need be no bid for the outstanding shares.
But what do we see? Perhaps the Sun had the best headline:
Benn backs bid for State to grab BP.
The Home Affairs Committee of the Labour Party, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry is chairman, has openly challenged that ruling and has apparently sent representations to the Secretary of State for Energy and his right hon. Friends that the Bank of England should now hand over these shares to the Government. We have the bizarre spectacle of the Bank and Treasury, having given solemn undertakings to the Takeover Panel, being publicly challenged by another member of the Cabinet. This is outrageous. This can be met only by a clear and unequivocal statement by the right hon. Gentleman today that the Government stand by the undertaking which they gave to the Takeover Panel and, furthermore, that the Bank will aim to dispose of the BP shares on the market as soon as practicable.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): Perhaps I may clear that matter up straight away. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was not at the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and that report is inaccurate.

Mr. Jenkin: In that case, every newspaper got it wrong. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—and I chose my words with great care—that he was not in the chair on that occasion. If the Secretary of State says that his right hon.


Friend was not at the meeting at all, of course I accept this.
This matter of the disposal of the BP shares is of crucial importance. Over the years BP has succeeded in establishing credibility overseas as an independent commercial company, and that it is not a mere creature of Government. By this dangerous flirting with the idea of takeover the Government risk wrecking it all. BP has huge assets in Alaska and the United States of America, and there is already a growing volume of criticism there that their oil supplies are in the hands of a foreign Government. The stupid talk of takeover can only damage the national interest and make the company's position more vulnerable than it is now.
I now turn to the main counts in the Government's energy policy failures. The first is energy saving. The Department has truly lived up to its sobriquet as "Department of Lethargy". We had to wait until 9th December to get anything, and then we had the 12-point programme which was little more than a public relations exercise. It has been estimated that it will not save more than £10 million to £15 million of oil in a year, which is equal to, say, one to one-and-a-half days' delay in bringing ashore North Sea oil.
The advertising campaign is a dismal flop. Incidentally, who in the Department was responsible for the remarkable observation in one of the advertisements—
Did you realise steam costs even more per ton than oil?
I hope they did not realise that, because it is wrong by a factor of 10.
The failure stems partly from a lack of any capacity in the right hon. Gentleman's Department to deal with conservation, and partly because he appears to lack any sense of urgency about the matter. This is emerging from the evidence to the Select Committee. Sir Ieuan Maddock gave evidence last month that
he was dismayed at the lack of feeling of crisis and high drama over the United Kingdom's energy situation.
Again, the Secretary of State's chief scientific adviser, Dr. Walter Marshall
had some difficulty yesterday convincing the Commons Energy sub-committee that anything much was happening in his Department.

I know that we have been promised further statements, but what are the Government doing about the proposals put forward by NIFES—the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, the largest and most experienced fuel efficiency firm in Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that NIFES's proposals have been sitting on his desk for about six months? Does he realise that the directors of NIFES have become so desperate at their failure to get any answers from his Department that they have now gone to the Department of Industry to see whether they can interest that Minister in what they are doing? Truly did the The Times describe the right hon. Gentleman's policy as one of
delay and confusion in saving energy".
It is time for the right hon. Gentleman to take a grip on this, to get things moving and to inject some sense of urgency.
I will tell him what he should do. We need proper energy-saving targets for every sector of the economy. We need a crash programme to train fuel technologists. We need a proper system of energy audits in industry. We need proper incentives to invest in an energy-saving plant. The Secretary of State is fond of saying that more effective energy-saving measures could only result in misery. That simply is not true. It could result in greater efficiency and greater profitability. We need some imagination, some go, some enthusiasm. So far we have had absolutely none.
The story is the same with the nuclear programme. A courageous decision was made in July to go for heavy water reactors. What has happened since then? Virtually nothing. There has been almost total silence. The National Nuclear Corporation was to be restructured, but nothing has happened, and with what results? As The Sunday Times of 16th February said,
Seven months after Energy Secretary Eric Varley took his dramatic decision to go firm on a series of British-designed power stations, the nuclear industry stands as demoralised and uncertain as ever it did.
There has been no announcement of revised shareholdings in NNC, no announcement of who is in charge, no announcement of contracts signed or


designs approved. Last Wednesday we read in The Times,
Statement expected today on nuclear restructuring
but absolutely nothing happened. A few days ago we were told that an agreement on hand-over of AGR contracts was imminent, but on Thursday one read The Times headline,
CEGB reactor agreement is deferred again".
It is an endless tale of delay and muddle. Why does not the Secretary of State knock their silly heads together, inject some urgency and get things moving? Not unnaturally, the people on the ground are getting restive. I have here a document from the Staff Side of the Joint Negotiating Panel of the TNPG. It reads:
Staff representatives are becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of positive direction that is now evident in the nuclear industry.
They go on to blame GEC. I blame the Secretary of State. He is in charge.
There is one other matter I must raise in relation to the nuclear programme. On all sides it is agreed that it is a tiny programme—only 4,000 megawatts as compared with programmes three or four times that size by France and Germany. The CBI has argued that we need a bigger programme. The TUC is urging the right hon. Gentleman to speed up the country's nuclear energy programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), whom I am glad to see in his place, asked the right hon. Gentleman a question which perhaps I may be allowed to quote,
Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment … at the Government's decision to proceed with a programme only one-third the size which the CEGB thought desirable? Will he confirm that the full programme suggested by the CEGB was unacceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers?
To this question the right hon. Gentleman gave a very snide reply:
I do not know what connection that supplementary question has with the matter under discussion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take me to one side and explain precisely what he meant."—[Official Report, 10th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1368.]
But of course the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what my hon. Friend meant because when he addressed the National Union of Mineworkers on 14th November 1974 he told them that the

decision—that is, on the nuclear programme—
was a decision of great importance to the coal industry. It puts faith in the British coal industry and British miners to deliver the coal needed for our power station programme … it can also be construed as an act of faith in the British coal industry and British miners to deliver the coal … needed.
It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not understand what my hon. Friend meant by his question.
So, to the charge of lethargy we have to add the charge of not being wholly frank with the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I am quoting from a Department of Energy hand-out of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The answer to my hon. Friend followed the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 10th July.
There is a disturbing rumour that work is not now to start for another two years, until the end of 1976. Is that true, and is it true that the Nuclear Inspectorate has raised a whole range of new difficulties on which it requires to be satisfied before it can give a site licence?
On coal, the Government were elected, and the right hon. Gentlemen's appointment was welcomed, because of, it was said, his ability to deal with the miners. In fact, in his first year he has suffered two major defeats. First, the union threw out the productivity scheme on which the right hon. Gentleman had placed so much importance. Secondly, the Government have been forced to accept a settlement which in the words of a leader in The Guardian of 14th February,
only the broad-minded or the short-sighted could see … as being within the guildelines set out in the social contract.
That leader ended:
The coalminers have not just made the prospects for unemployment this year more bleak. They may eventually find some of their own members have been priced out of work.
Hard on the heels of that judgment comes the warning from Mr. Arthur Hawkins that the colossal price increases which the miners' pay deal means for the CEGB can only lead to a sharp downturn in the demand for electricity. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) yesterday drew attention to this and to the grim consequences for the power station programme and for employment in the electric equipment industry.
I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State will give his Department's forecast for the building programme. Tens of thousands of jobs will depend upon it.
Indeed, I would ask him to go further. The tripartite examination of the coal industry was based on the assumption of a 30 per cent. headroom between coal and oil prices. Two great pay hikes in a year have eroded that headroom to the point of disappearance. The Secretary of State should now reconvene the tripartite study and re-examine the assumptions on which the Plan for Coal was based.
Finally, oil. This is the saddest, most disastrous tale of the lot, for to the charges of lethargy and lack of frankness must be added the charge of sheer, doctrinaire folly. A year ago when this Government came into office the offshore oil industry was all go. Finance was readily available, confidence was high, programmes were expanding and orders for equipment were booming. Today what do we see? We see confidence badly shaken, project finance—off-balance sheet finance—out of the question, unobtainable. United Kingdom oil is no longer a bankable proposition.
Almost every day over the last two months we have read in the Press of programmes slowing down, of rigs diverted and of investment postponed. The right hon. Gentleman should know that there have been redundancies in pipe coating mills in Leith because there has been no work. There has been labour unrest in platform yards due to lack of orders coming in for platforms. On every side there has been doubt, confusion, down-right dismay. The loss of confidence is mainly due to the Government's inept fiscal policy and doctrinaire nationalisation policy.
Today's announcement on PRT may go some way to repair the damage that has been done, but I doubt whether it will restore the incentive to explore for the small fields. The test will come over the next two years, to show how many exploration rigs there are—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but at the moment between a half and a third of the number of oil rigs are wildcatting in the North Sea compared with those anticipated a year ago. I have read the speech that the hon. Gentleman

made in Edinburgh and no doubt he will deal with that in his reply.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also confirm, as I said in Edinburgh—it is the truth—that the 28 rigs operating in the North Sea at present represent the highest proportion which has ever operated in the British sector.

Mr. Jenkin: But not as many as the industry had anticipated, and the great majority are now engaged in appraisal and delineation, and not in wild-catting for new discoveries. That is where future discoveries must come from.

Dr. Phipps: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman from personal knowledge that one of the reasons that there is such a delay is that rigs ordered from American yards, which should have arrived two years ago, are only just arriving in the North Sea. There has been an enormous slow down in rig production in the States. A rig with which my company is involved has just arrived, one year and eleven months late.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept that there have been delays all along, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will equally accept that, whereas a year ago it was impossible to get a rig for love or money less than two years ahead, one can now go straight into the market and get rigs, because companies do not want to take up their options.
Then there is participation. Here I must confess to being totally bewildered about what the Government are trying to do. At first it was the money that they were after. This was clearly spelled out by the Secretary of State in an article in the Glasgow Herald during the election;
They
—the Government—
will acquire a direct stake in the most profitable investment going in this country … The return on the public half-share participation will be sufficient to pay back the whole initial investment in about a year or so.
Only a month or two ago, the Under-Secretary of State made the same point at a conference when he said that participation was needed by the Government
to guarantee its revenue not simply by taxation but also by a share of profits earned on


its investment … I find it difficult to understand why what is a good investment for the oil companies and others is not equally good for the nation.

Mr. John Smith: Quite right.

Mr. Jenkin: But the Under-Secretary must learn that that is not now the Government's policy. The Under-Secretary may not have realised it, but it was changed by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in Washington, according to The Times on 3rd February:
The key point that had to be appreciated, he said, was that the British Government had no intention of adding to its take from the North Sea through participation plans designed to give the Government majority control over the oil resources … it believed the only way it should obtain revenues from the North Sea oil was by means of the new oil tax and through corporation taxes.
That may come as news to the Under-Secretary, but it has been Government policy for at least a month and was repeated in the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy only last Wednesday. I must make it clear that in one sense we welcome this. It has always been our view that the Government should look for their share of the revenues to the tax system. I am glad that they now accept the view that we have always put forward.
If it is not money, what are they looking for? The answer is control over the oil itself. But they have a good deal of control already. The oil has to come ashore in the United Kingdom unless the Government give consent otherwise. Power exists over exports and imports. They propose to take new powers to control such things as depletion and pipelines. Control will stem from legislation and not from ownership. We shall see the legislation when it comes forward.
So last Wednesday we had a new phrase from the Government to justify State participation. In answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Chancellor of the Duchy said:
What we are now seeking is to give the British people the title to a share of the oil itself ".
He went on to say that the Government would scrupulously honour all their contractual and commercial obligations.
How on earth will that be done? The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear

that the expected rate of profit would be "unchanged" by "acceptance of 51 per cent. participation"—I am quoting from the Chancellor of the Duchy on 10th January—the so-called "no gain, no loss" solution. I am at a loss to know what that means. It could be no more than an empty facade to cover embarrassing political commitments, but it is causing immense doubt, confusion and loss of confidence.
Still worse, there has now crept into all this an element of compulsion. When the policy was first announced it was going to be voluntary. Yet last Wednesday, in the same exchange, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), the right hon. Gentleman said:
I told them that the Cabinet might feel obliged, if it were unable to satisfy its objectives, which seem to us fair and reasonable and not incompatible with the interests of the oil companies, by voluntary agreement with them, to nationalise—".
My hon. Friend interposed:
Blackmail.
The Chancellor went on:
to nationalise that proportion of the licences that it thought right to nationalise."—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1338, 1341.]
That sounds to me very much like coercion. I would remind the Secretary of State of what he said. It was considered so noteworthy that the Observer put it into its "Sayings of the Week" column on 14th July:
We in Britain do not go in for coercion like some other oil producing countries.
Like hell they don't.
So where do we now stand? We are talking of Britain's most valuable natural asset, capable in five years of making us self-sufficient in oil and relieving us of a balance of payments burden of £3½ billion a year. The Government want 51 per cent. of the oil but want to leave the companies no worse off. They are going to honour their contractual obligations but will take half of the licences away. They will negotiate voluntarily but under threat of expropriation if the companies do not volunteer.
That is why I describe their policy as one of utter shambles, and I know why it is a shambles. They are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. They are trying to reconcile the commitments that they made to the Left before the election with


the national need to get the industry investing. They cannot possibly pay for the 51 per cent. that they want because that would cost £3 billion or £4 billion and they do not have that kind of money. Yet they are hooked on an election pledge. I know of no more apt case for the application of that memorable epitaph on Socialist governments which was apparently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, according to the Crossman diaries:
Is it really impossible for a Labour Government ever to drop an idea because it is found to be impractical?
So, weighing up the credits and debits of the right hon. Gentleman's energy balance sheet after his first year in office, I am bound to declare him bankrupt. His coal objectives are threatened by massive pay settlements way outside the social contract which now offer a severe threat to the industry's future. His nuclear plans, after a brave start, are bogged down in delay and indecision and the prospect of a new nuclear programme is further off than ever. His energy savings policy is no more than tinkering and has no sense of urgency about it. His energy research and development policy, on the evidence of his own chief scientist, has not even started yet. And his oil policy is a total and utter shambles.
In this motion we seek to cut his salary. The truth is, he should resign.

4.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Eric G. Varley): For the last 30 minutes or so the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has been huffing and puffing away in an attempt to convince the House that he was genuinely moving a motion of censure on the Government for their energy policies. However, the right hon. Gentleman does not have his heart in this. I am always reluctant to criticise him, especially when it comes to conservation. It is very tempting to do so, but I will let it go on this occasion, because everybody knows what a marvellous record he has on conservation since those heady days of a year ago when he was Minister of Energy.
I prefer to look upon this debate not as an occasion for the synthetic outbursts to which we have just listened but rather as a sentimental journey. I am sorry

that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is not present. I make no complaint about that. But I well remember when she was the Conservative Party's spokesman, or spokesperson, on energy in the late 1960's. I find it extremely touching that her first Supply Day as Leader of the Opposition should be devoted to a return to the scene of her former triumphs. I am far too much of a gentleman to suggest that she is returning to the scene of her crime. But re-reading those speeches of hers in the late 1960's—as I have over the weekend, because I thought that there might be something very interesting in what she said when spokesman on energy—I noted in particular a very forthright statement she made about the future of the coal industry. When talking about the coal industry on 5th December 1967, the right hon. Lady said:
As far as I can see, morale will be raised … only when the industry has finished its contraction and is once again competitive on its own unsubsidised merits."—[Official Report, 5th December 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1273.]
That is our policy exactly. We are ending the contraction. We are introducing realistic pricing policies, and morale in the industry is higher than it has been for years. So this censure certainly cannot be about our coal policy, especially in view of the right hon. Lady's advocacy seven years ago—and especially, also, since the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford himself insisted in a speech last June that the Conservative Government were committed to the tripartite examination into the coal industry that we ourselves carried through. I cannot pretend that I noticed it at the time, but it is nice to know now. This confirms that the Tory Party cannot be opposed to our coal policy since this is entirely based on the tripartite examination which we carried through and which the Opposition say they would have carried through.

Mr. John Hannam: Is not the key word invoked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in that earlier speech, and in comments made by the Secretary of State himself, the word "competitive"? Does not the future of the coal industry depend on it remaining competitive? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that


his policies will result in the industry remaining competitive? It is not apparent to the House and the country that the recent pay awards, which have received no comment from the right hon. Gentleman, will enable the coal industry to remain competitive.

Mr. Varley: It is the Government's intention to ensure as far as possible that the coal industry and all fuel industries keep competitive. We have said again and again that we want to phase out subsidies. I am surprised if the hon. Gentleman is returning to the question of wages and the mining industry, because only last week when we debated this matter the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), in opening his speech, said
The Secretary of State need have no fears about my indulging in any attacks upon the wage award made to the mining industry."—[Official Report, 19th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 1357.]
I have just been asked about policies. I hope that the Opposition will not change policies within a few days.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that a year ago there was a 30 per cent. leeway between the price of coal and the price of oil, and that as a result of a year of Labour administration that has now disappeared?

Mr. Varley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would suggest what we should have done. I have another marvellous quotation, if he will bear with me. His right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), on radio two weeks ago, when asked what he would have done had he been the Secretary of State for Employment responsible for whatever social contract a Conservative Government would have had, said:
I do not think that we could have done anything other than what has happened.
The only thing I have said is that when the wages go up in the mining industry, it is the Government's intention that the subsidies should be phased out, and phased out as quickly as possible. That is our policy, and I cannot understand what the Opposition are complaining about.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Varley: I could argue this matter over days. Perhaps I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but not now. I know that he is very anxious to speak and that he is knowledgeable about energy matters. I may say something later which may provoke him again.
As I have said I cannot understand what the Conservative Party is complaining about on coal policy. What about nuclear policy? Our nuclear policy is based upon the choice of the steam generating heavy water reactor to power the next generation of nuclear power stations. The Tory Party manifesto declares that, if the Tories had been returned to power, they would
carry through the recently announced pilot programme of nuclear power stations based on the British designed 'heavy water' system.
And let us be perfectly fair: the passage continued:
We believe that a larger nuclear programme must be initiated at an early date. In all nuclear matters, safety and reliability must be our paramount considerations.
No more—that is the whole passage on nuclear power. So I cannot understand what the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford is complaining about in opposing this—especially since at the right hand of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition sits the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—Airey the queen maker. He is the most passionate advocate of all of the SGHWR. So it cannot be to our nuclear policy that they object. What can it be? Can it be our oil policy? Our oil policy is, of course, based upon majority State participation. With his customary frankness the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has confessed that "The last Conservative Government …"—[Interruption] I do not know what the Opposition Chief Whip is complaining about. What is he muttering about? He keeps muttering on the Front Bench. If he wants to intervene I suggest that he rises to speak.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Varley: Is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Whip?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip was making the very pertinent comment that the Minister was not attempting to answer any of the


accusations which I made against him in my speech.

Mr. Varley: I have been speaking for only five minutes. It may be that I shall have something to say which will suit the Opposition Chief Whip. I hope that he will be patient, but if he feels that he must intervene I should much prefer it if he would move to the Dispatch Box and intervene in the debate properly.
But what about oil policy? About a year ago the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was saying that the last Conservative Government had by no means ruled out participation. He will remember those words well, because he delivered them in a speech in Oslo last April.
This attack on our policy is a very "phoney" attack. For nearly four years the Conservatives staggered along from crisis to crisis without any energy policy at all, except that from time to time they had it in mind to stir up unnecessary confrontations. When we came into office, almost exactly a year ago, we found no coal policy, and no trace of any preparation for a tripartite examination. We found no nuclear policy, and no sign of a decision on nuclear reactors. We found no oil policy—which was somewhat of a relief, when one recalls the previous Tory Government's weak-kneed attitude towards the division of the North Sea in 1963. There had been plenty of promises but no action.
Our task since 5th March 1974 has been to work out a viable, comprehensive and co-ordinated energy policy for Britain based on exploitation and control of our indigenous fuels, and we have made a pretty good start. In the coal industry new confidence has returned following the ending of the dispute that the Conservatives provoked. Manpower is increasing again, for the first time for 10 years—4,600 up on a year ago—and recruitment is exceeding the NCB's target rate. I saw the other day that in one region there is a waiting list for vacancies at the pits. Coal stocks are encouragingly high. Partly, of course, this is because of the wonderfully mild winter that we have had, but that is, I think, a better reason than the deliberate stockpiling which occurred under the previous Government 18 months ago. Absenteeism during the past 11 months has been

below the level of absenteeism during the comparable previous 11 months of the previous Tory Government.
We are going full speed ahead with the increased investment programme. Already 24 major projects have been approved which will provide some 8 million tons of output a year. Assuming that planning permission is granted, the proposed new mine at Selby should produce 10 million tons a year. Thus, within 18 months of our taking office, projects should be in hand to produce half our extra coal in the National Coal Board's plan. What is more, the industry is pressing on with an extensive exploration programme. It is not surprising that the men in the pits are providing solid evidence of their determination to produce the coal that Britain needs.
Since the return to work after the summer holidays the overall face productivity record has been beaten on three occasions. The story is the same all over Britain. Rawdon in the South Midlands set up a national face driveage record of 143 yards in 10 shifts. Dawdon in the North East produced 4,000 saleable tons from a single face in 24 hours. Solsgirth in Scotland only last month produced 25,260 tons from one face in five days. That beat the previous British record held by Kellingly in North Yorkshire and may well be a world record. That is the high morale that the right hon. Lady asked for, and it is producing the coal the nation needs.
And morale is high as well in our nuclear industry and among our nuclear technologists, who endured years of Tory Government without any sign of a decision. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has always tried to have this one all ways. On the one hand, especially with his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon breathing over his shoulder, he has concurred in the decision that we took. But at the same time he has niggled about it. In his heart I do not think that he likes our decision. I believe that he would rather have PWR, but he has never had the courage to say so from the Dispatch Box. At least it is a programme based on a decision made after only four months in office compared with the 44 months without a nuclear programme when the Conservative Party was in Government. In only four months we took a decision.
The right hon. Gentleman says that our programme is only a tiny one compared with what our main competitors are doing. Anyone who read Sunday's Observer, with its sombre account of the setbacks, cutbacks and reappraisals of our main competitors and the experience that they are undergoing, has to acknowledge that both our choice of reactor and pace of development are absolutely right.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the statement that I made on 10th July about nuclear reactor choice. I thought that he quoted rather effectively the remarks of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on that day. The hon. Gentleman asked me on that occasion:
Is the Secretary of State aware of the disappointment among those who work in heavy electrical engineering at Trafford Park in the Greater Manchester area …"—[Official Report, 10th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1368.]
I do not know whether he wants to stick by that or to withdraw it.
The very next day the workers of Trafford Park sent me a telegram congratulating the Government on the decision that we had taken and on our choice of the SGHWR as giving the nuclear industry, which had been without orders since 1970, a firm base after years of uncertainty on which to plan its future. The implementation of the nuclear strategy that was announced in July 1974 is now well in hand. As is generally the case with major technological developments—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the views being expressed by the staff side of the joint negotiating committee of the TNPG? They do not begin to match his description. They are complaining of a lack of purpose in the industry.

Mr. Varley: I have met the representatives of the TNPG and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and all those within industry. They are at one in saying that it was a good decision. They are anxious about getting the programme under way. I recognise that. I want to get it under way as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The National Nuclear Corporation was set up by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in the middle of 1973. He did not get the Nuclear Power Company set up because

of the difficulties associated with it. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting forward all the problems faced by the coal and nuclear industries, would bear some of the matters in mind that I have put forward if he wants to be absolutely fair.
The decision has been welcomed and some progress has been made, although I realise that not enough progress has as yet been made. I am not satisfied with what has been done. I want to see much more progress, but I shall outline to the House what has been done so far. Consents under the Electric Lighting Act 1909 have already been granted for the Sizewell and Torness sites, thus enabling the electricity boards to go ahead with preliminary non-nuclear site work. Authority for the National Nuclear Corporation to proceed with the design and development of the Sizewell "B" station has been announced by the CEGB. Negotiations are well advanced for collaboration with the Canadians, notably for the purchase of our initial heavy water requirements and for a technical information collaboration agreement. Time spent now in careful planning and execution will more than offset the delays that could occur later.
The SGHWR programme means jobs for British workers. Not only is the technology of United Kingdom origin, but the engineering components are based on development programmes carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority and our major firms. Benefits should flow directly from the development of SGHWR power stations into many engineering firms and to the construction sector.
The work generated through our programme will reach many areas of British industry—for example, fabrication work for the reactor system, mechanical plant of all kinds, electrical equipment, cranes and civil engineering. The civil engineering work will require manpower resources, mostly locally recruited, running at its peak into thousands. So will the mechanical work, which will reach many sectors of the engineering trades, including Trafford Park.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly cannot justify any allegations of slippage in our nuclear programme, and certainly not in his Government's non-existent nuclear programme. So he tried all the harder to prove that there had been


some slippage in our programme of getting oil from the North Sea. Of course there has been some slippage. That took place during the Conservative Party's period of office, which I described to the House in my very first speech in this job.
When we took office a year ago it was clear that the last Tory Government's estimate of production of 25 million tons of oil from the North Sea this year was totally unrealistic. They had failed to appreciate the immense technical and other difficulties which had to be overcome before the oil could be brought ashore. Slippage as a result of delays during their period of office led to a drastic reduction in the quantities of oil expected to be brought ashore this year.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has always had slippage in the forefront of his mind—namely, slippage caused by the headlong rush away from the North Sea. That is what he has said in the past and he said it again this afternoon. He suggested a headlong rush away from the North Sea by the oil companies as a result of the Labour Government's predatory policies.
I have had cause before to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's inferiority complex when it comes to British relationships with the international oil companies. I have drawn attention before to the much more drastic oil policies of other oil-producing countries, and of the acceptance by the multinational companies of those policies. The right hon. Gentleman shrinks delicately away from the policy advocated a couple of years ago by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. Two years ago that Committee, which had a majority of Tory members, reported that there should be some public participation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The committee made only two recommendations and I have quoted them to the House on previous occasions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the recommendations made by the committee. First, is recommended that there should be a plugging of the tax loopholes. Secondly, it recommended that the Government should consider increasing their take. There were no recommendations about participation.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct himself.

Mr. Varley: I have not a great deal of experience of Select Committees. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling me that eight of his colleagues—the majority of the Committee—would allow these words to appear in a report to the House:
We are also concerned that there were no provisions for variation or renegotiation of the financial terms, however much the find, or for obtaining a degree of Government participation.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who were in a majority on that Committee, said.
Since our last debate there have been other developments. It is always interesting and wise to look at what is happening throughout the world in major oil-producing countries. Saudi Arabia is continuing its negotiations with Aramco to acquire 100 per cent. participation and Aramco has accepted the concept in principle.

Mr. Skeet: That is a developing State.

Mr. Varley: Other Gulf States may follow what is happening in Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Churchill: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate the difference between the situation in a country such as Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States where they already have millions of tons of oil per day on stream and the situation we have in this island where we are seeking desperately to attract more people and more capital to help us to exploit our own natural resources?

Mr. Varley: I am coming to that point in a few moments. If Saudi Arabia does not suit the hon. Gentleman, what about Norway? Is Norway more akin? It is a pretty well developed country. I think it even has a Labour Government. Norway proposes to step up her stake through taxation and participation and it has a national oil company, too.
Yet the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford believes that the oil companies will flee in panic from the policies outlined in such sober and sensible language in the House last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In last February's election campaign the right


hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford painted the most terrifying picture of what would ensue if the unthinkable happened and a Labour Government were returned to carry out our participation policies. This is the warning the right hon. Gentleman gave in a Press hand-out from Central Office on 13th February, and this is if Labour won the election:
The immediate effect would be to halt all operations. Oil rigs would immediately be transferred to other countries' offshore areas. Valuable teams would be dispersed and the whole of our offshore oil effort would come to a grinding halt.
That was the right hon. Gentleman's warning.
After a year of office during which we have made no secret of our policies and are indeed actively pursuing them, what is the position? The right hon. Gentleman prophesied that all operations would be halted. In fact, activity on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf at present is at a much higher level than a year ago. The right hon. Gentleman had lurid visions of oil rigs being towed off to distant oceans.

Mr. Skeet: The Secretary of State was dealing with Norway. He will recognise one great difference. Norway has no major international oil company such as British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell. It has only one small company, namely, Norsk Hydro. Norway has adopted the very strict policy that it would not break existing concessions. The British Government are breaking existing concessions and are threatening nationalisation if the voluntary arrangements break up.

Mr. Varley: There is a political commitment that we have to fulfil. The hon. Gentleman should know this. It was a policy set out clearly without any apologies in the February and October manifestos. That political commitment must be honoured.
Far from the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the efforts would come to a grinding halt being correct, at present there are 29 exploration rigs operating in the British sector compared with 21 at this time last year. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said on 13th February of last year that
the whole of our offshore oil effort would come to a erinding halt.

Far from coming to a halt, that effort is going ahead well and providing jobs for Britain as well. During 1974, 100 exploration and appraisal wells were begun or drilled compared with only 61 during 1973.
Contrary to all the scare stories which the right hon. Gentleman has been putting about, present indications are that this high level of activity is likely to continue this year. The Forties and Auk production platforms are now being installed and development drilling is expected to commence shortly. Of 18 platforms under construction or on order for the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea, 11 are being built in the United Kingdom. In the second half of 1972 only two modules were being built in the United Kingdom. By 1974 this had increased to 152.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should be so upset by good news, for I am well aware that he thrives on bad news. In fact, good news for Britain is had news for the Tory Party. It is only a matter of three months ago that the right hon. Gentleman, addressing an appreciative audience of Conservative women in Somerset on 22nd November, declared:
The Government maintain their bland confidence that we can get through the winter without power cuts, but this assumes a mild winter, no industrial action, no interruption in oil supplies, no power station breakdowns. A scarcely credible combination.
I am a cautious man and the winter is not over yet, but so far at any rate we have had that "scarcely credible combination". We have had a mild winter. Industrial action—there has not been any. Oil supplies—they are flowing freely. Power station breakdowns—touch wood, there has been none so far.
The only "scarcely credible combination" is the combination of right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who so deservedly occupy the Opposition Front Bench. They cannot believe in government without power cuts, since during every single winter when they held office there were power cuts and black-outs brought about by their deliberate policies of industrial confrontation. This is the first winter since 1969 which we have so far managed to get through while avoiding dimmed lights, sudden cuts or fuel restrictions.
The right hon. Gentleman sneered at our energy conservation policies as


inadequate. I have never said that our proposals on energy conservation are the last word. I am not proud. If there are those who can make politically realistic and credible energy conservation proposals, we shall consider them sincerely and carefully. We have a long way to go on energy conservation, but at least our energy conservation policies are voluntary policies. Those of the Tories were forced on them in an unnecessary crisis brought about by the massive failure of their industrial and energy policies.
It is the Tory Party which has the brass neck to move a vote of censure on the Government who are at last taking action that makes sense on coal, gas, nuclear policy, and oil. The House will reject the Tories' words and their motion.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The Secretary of State for Energy made some interesting comments when he spoke of oil prices and the recent settlement. He did not concede what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has indicated, namely, that the difference between the price of oil and the price of coal has now eroded. I hope he will concede the point that a coal price of 6p per therm and a fuel oil price of 8·75p, with another wage deal on top, will lead to the final erosion. The bulk of the tripartite arrangements is aimed at developing coal potential in the United Kingdom at 150 million tons. Therefore, if prices continue to erode there will be little opportunity for manoeuvre open to the right hon. Gentleman.
In regard to the nuclear programme, it is interesting to note that one of the observations made by the Government's Nuclear Power Advisory Board was as follows. We appreciate that what the Government wanted to do to placate the miners was to build fewer nuclear power stations. This is a very good philosophy, if that is the Government's case. However, it may be a very expensive price for the United Kingdom to pay. The Nuclear Power Advisory Board, as reported in The Times on 14th September 1974, said:
The amount of additional fossil fuel required today is very large, with a manual cost up to £500 million in 1985–86 and increasing in the years thereafter possibly to £1,000 mil-

lion in 1990–91. Therefore, the cost to the consumer would be reduced to some extent, say to 20 per cent., by the effect of the lower capital cost of the fossil fuel plant.
Is the Secretary of State prepared to concede that the price of fuel will continue to rise? If he had adopted a realistic nuclear policy there would be a saving to the taxpayer because these plants are operating at a lower operating cost. One has only to look at the pittance the right hon. Gentleman resorted to: three nuclear power stations of 4,000 MW over a period of four years. That is all he intended to undertake.
Let us compare that situation with that in other European countries—and they cannot all be wrong. In France the figure is six stations of 1,000 to 1,300 MW per annum for 1976–77. In Western Germany they are aiming at 30 stations of over 1,000 MW by 1985. Sweden is going ahead with an expensive nuclear programme—and that country, incidentally, has a Socialist Government. In the EEC the figure in 1970 was 20 million tons of coal for nuclear power equivalent to 1·4 per cent. of the EEC energy balance. By 1985, 372 million tons of coal equivalent is to be allocated, representing a figure of 17 per cent. The extraordinary fact is that the Secretary of State seeks to diminish the responsibility of the electricity industry while the EEC is going in an entirely different direction.
If France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and other European countries are to go for nuclear power as the only way out of the fuel crisis, why must we have this diminished programme? Should we not attribute to the Government a lack of appreciation of the nature of the crisis with which we are involved? Does the Minister not recognise that a 1,000 MW station would replace an annual consumption of 2·25 million tons of coal per year? I am prepared to concede that if the idea is to ensure that coal goes into the power stations it may be an extremely good programme, but it may mean for the public higher prices for electricity and other fuels. Let the Secretary of State tell the nation now about the situation.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in regard to the Magnox power station, of which we decided to build about six,


many people thought that there would be far too many to obtain the normal level required for the next series of power stations? Therefore, in terms of the three which are to be built, that is a greater step forward than anything done by the Conservative Government during their period of office.

Mr. Skeet: If the Magnox stations had not been built and we had relied on coal-fired stations this would have cost £156 million for coal as opposed to a figure of about £23 million for uranium fuels. Therefore, it was wise to go ahead with the Magnox arrangement.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The hon. Member has missed the point.

Mr. Skeet: We are going ahead with the SGHWR and I am prepared to put forward my personal opinion that we should have gone in for the light water reactors. They could have been ordered off the shelf and within a couple of years there would have been the possibility of that amount of extra electric power—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not off the shelf."] It is curious that in France, West Germany and elsewhere they have these stations operating already and are experiencing no difficulty at all. Furthermore, one is to be built close to the United Kingdom—namely, in Dunkirk.
Let me come to the question of the utter shemozzle of the Government in their dealings with the National Nuclear Corporation. Why have they been experiencing such difficulties in this regard in the past seven months? There have been uncertainties about the management structure. Perhaps the GEC does not want the investment of 50 per cent. What have the figures been scaled down to? Is the figure to be 50 per cent. or 20 per cent.? Why has the Secretary of State not told us? We are still awaiting a statement some seven to eight months later. Perhaps it involves the question of who is to bear the responsibility for the phased completion of the AGRs. I thought that there would be a draft agreement made between the NNC and the CEGB. This matter was mentioned in The Times on 22nd February 1975, but my right hon. Friend believes that this has been deferred still further.
Obviously, if responsibility for the AGRs cannot be handed to the NNC, it is impossible for the corporation to go ahead realistically with the programme for SHGWR reactors. For one thing, there is the difficulty of resources. Many of the skilled workers of the nuclear programme have dispersed and have gone to other industries. Certainly many of the design teams have broken up. No nuclear station has been ordered since 1970 and there is only one in the offing for 1976. In regard to the other stations we find that the chairman of the CEGB is going back on Killingholme and an oil-fired station which would have been built at Plymouth. Therefore, if we are to have no effective nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, how are we to build the SGHWR here?

Mr. Thomas Swain: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many nuclear power stations were ordered and put into operation in the years when the Tories had the reins of office? One has only to look at what a hell of mess they made to realise what sort of a situation we should now be facing if they were still in office.

Mr. Skeet: I have mentioned the nuclear programme, the Magnox and the AGR programmes. The first lot are complete but the second lot are incomplete, and that is most regrettable. The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert me from my main aim of incriminating the Government, which I intend to do. I have mentioned the two programmes which I support.
There is a management direction problem with the National Nuclear Corporation. Who is to be in charge? Is it to be the GEC or the National Power Group? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us. [Interruption.] There might be less laughter if he faced the serious situation in which he finds himself. He was going to make a statement last week, but unfortunately—according to The Times and all the reputable national Press—we have not yet had that statement. He is apparently not in a position to make it. He does not know whether he will reduce the GEC holding from 50 per cent. He does not know whether the control is to pass from the


GEC to TNPG. Perhaps he will condescend to make a statement later today and tell us precisely where we stand.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also say something about the Nuclear Inspectorate, what it thinks about the matter, and whether it is concerned about the safety side of the steam generated heavy water reactors.
Will he also say something about the CEGB and the modifications it requires for the 100-megawatt prototype at Winfrith Heath? It is possible that it cannot be scaled up as easily as he contemplates. It may be that we shall not see many of these stations materialising in the next two or three years.
I put to the Secretary of State yesterday a Question about the spirit of co-operation with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It was mentioned that there are already negotiations. Mr. Gordon Leaist, the nuclear power marketing manager for AECY, said last September, as reported in The Times:
We are supposed to exchange design information, and there is not an organisation in existence in Britain at present. We know who will operate the British reactors, but we do not know who will design and build them.
The report continues:
Mr. Eric Varley, Secretary of State for Energy, told the Commons when he announced the British Government's decision in July 'United Kingdom's nuclear organisations and the electricity boards will start discussing co-operation with their Canadian counterparts immediately'.
The Secretary of State is embarrassed by this. He knows that he does not have the organisation fit to conduct the negotiations about co-operation over Candu with the Canadians, and he has to stave the matter off by saying that informal discussions are being held. On this score the Government's nuclear programme has broken down completely.
In the last sentence of his speech the Secretary of State referred to natural gas, but he said nothing about it. The United Kingdom has various sources of supply—

Mr. Swain: We are getting some now.

Mr. Skeet: You contribute a lot in your time, but you have not yet had the opportunity today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I do not want the opportunity.

Mr. Skeet: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In the United Kingdom we have been deriving a small quantity of liquid natural gas through Canvey Island. The south North Sea Basin has been producing 4,000 million cubic feet per day. From Frigg, which is likely to come into operation 1977, not 1976, there will come a further 1,500 million cubic feet a day, and from Brent a further 600 million cubic feet a day by 1979. What is apparent, and what the Government have overlooked, is that there has been a tight supply of gas for many years. Yet the Government have been under-pricing this commodity to such an extent that fairly recently they had to break one of the sections of the Gas Act 1972 to cut down the British Gas Corporation's obligations to industry. The corporation was entitled to do that because it received a direction from the Minister.
In contrast, there has been a rapid speed-up in the development of natural gas in Europe, where gas has been considered in the whole European context. The United Kingdom has adopted a purely insular policy. Europe has been securing gas from Algeria, the Soviet Union and North Holland. The United Kingdom has taken it only from what is available in the south North Sea.
The Government now want it from the north North Sea, from the Brent and Forties fields. What about the important potential that has been run down? The corporation has not been able to build up supplies. Another major mistake the Government made was to assume that they would get an enormous supply of gas from the Locton field, which was supposed to run for a contract period of 15 years. The field, discovered by Home Oil of Canada, started to feed the grid in May 1971. The contract was to run for 15 years, but the well was shut down on 1st September 1974, after three years. The Secretary of State may know that if the reservoir structure is sound he may have further difficulties in the southern North sea. He may have discovered that some of the optimistic estimates made several years ago have already been revised.
The Secretary of State has underpaid the producers. I will give a few figures to illustrate what has been happening. In the Viking field he paid the producers 36 US cents for 1,000 cubic feet—1·5p per therm. Norway gets 52 US cents for Ekofisk gas as a starting price. The Dutch border price in 1974 was 70 US cents. Iran now sells to the Russians at 62 US cents. We pay the producers the basic price. The result is that there is no further exploration in the south North Sea. The Secretary of State is not encouraging further development or exploration.
How does the consumer fare? The domestic consumer in England and Wales pays 10·81p per therm. In Scotland he pays 13·78p per therm. In the Netherlands he pays a lower price. Now I take the Secretary of State's figures, which appeared in Hansard on 18th December 1974. The range of gas prices in pence per therm was as follows: United Kingdom, 10·5; Belgium, 16·2; the Federal Republic of Germany, 17·8; and France, 21·2.
Has the Secretary of State not learned that the Federal Power Commission of the United States made the big mistake of under-pricing natural gas? The result was that demand outran supply, which led to great problems. The Secretary of State is in exactly the same situation. He is not raising the price of natural gas along with the prices of other forms of energy. People are coming out of electricity, oil, coal and going into gas. He will run short of supplies again. When will he adopt a policy which is reasonable and in the national interest? I hope that he will take into account what I have said on that score.
The whole of the Government's oil policy has been based on three enactments. First, the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill is to provide more sites for production platforms which are not now required.
Secondly, there is the Oil Taxation Bill, which is to provide for the taxation of the North Sea. The approach is wholly wrong. It has had the effect of driving people out of the North Sea so that we shall not get the maximum supply of oil. Thirdly, there is the Petroleum

Bill, which provides for a 51 per cent. participation. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to maximise extraction from the North Sea he should provide an economic climate in which the companies can operate. I am not against taxing them heavily—far from it: it is most desirable—but if at the end of the road the oil does not come and if we fall further and further behind on our schedules we can blame only the Secretary of State and his colleagues. Before that happens I hope that there will be a change of policy.
On the oil front the Secretary of State has been unsuccessful. On the nuclear front he has taken the wrong route. On the gas front he has chosen the wrong price for natural gas and we shall run short of supplies. On the coal front he is prepared to pay the miners any price they demand. He is paying danegeld to prevent strikes, with the result that he will produce coal but may not have a market for it. Before it is too late, will the Secretary of State look again at his national programme to see whether it is right? All the Europeans cannot be wrong.

5.51 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: My right hon. Friend need hardly fear for his salary. A glance at the Opposition benches shows that the Opposition will barely have sufficient speakers to keep the debate going let alone win a Division in the Lobby.
In the two speeches we have heard from the Opposition my right hon. Friend has been blamed for everything except for a failure to build windmills. Opposition Members tilted at a few windmills, because what has been criticised is the messy energy policy which the Labour administration and my right hon. Friend inherited in February last year. We inherited a situation in which conservation was brought about by confrontation, and that was particularly true in the energy industries. We had confrontation in the electricity generating industry, and in coal mining we had confrontation so often and of so prolonged a nature that eventually the British people became heartily sick of it and rejected that policy and the administration which had been responsible for it.
In the barely 12 months we have had since then we can argue with some justification that serious attempts have been made to get a co-ordinated energy policy. Far from making decisions on nuclear energy of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), the Opposition made not a single decision in this area of policy in the four years they were in office. Far from complaining about the decisions which have been made, the Opposition should look to then own record. On nuclear energy we inherited a policy vacuum. We cannot accept, and nor will the British people, the churlish criticisms we have heard from the Opposition today.
We should not be rigid about the various rôles which individual fuels play in our total energy policy. Coal undoubtedly will be a long-term component of any energy policy, but there are hon. Members in the Chamber who are better qualified than I am to discuss that aspect. Oil and gas will be much the least lengthy participants in any energy policy in the long term. They will play a transient rôle in future energy patterns, but it is none the less important that as a Government and as a country we should control the part they play in our energy provisions, and I welcome the decisions which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have made. Nuclear power generation will almost inevitably play a long-term rôle in power generation in the United Kingdom. In that sense I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford that the present programme is disappointing.
In a recent energy debate my right hon. Friend said:
That programme has been described as a modest programme of 4,000 megawatts which will perhaps come on stream in the early 1980s.… when one looks at the British nuclear programme in relation to Europe, there is nothing at all to complain about."—[Official Report, 11th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 237.]
I would rather we looked at our programme not necessarily solely in the context of European programmes but in the context of our own previous performance and, additionally, in terms of the research and development effort that the United Kindom has put into, and is still putting into, nuclear energy. The Department of Energy's research and development budget is inadequate, as the Chief

Scientist admitted recently to the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Unfortunately, we still have no clearly defined research and development strategy for energy. While I recognise that it is perhaps too soon to complain too strongly on that account, I believe that we should be moving quickly towards a well-defined research and development strategy for energy policy. My right hon. Friend may be correct in his comparison of our efforts with those of other countries, but looked at in terms of our previous position the present programme is too small. The current research and development budget of about £110 million does not keep pace with inflation. Of that amount more than 50 per cent. is spent on nuclear research and development. It seems a little odd that our major research and development effort in energy produces so small a return in terms of the size of the programme we are embarked upon. That is not satisfactory and the position should be examined.
We cannot, however, contemplate a massive expansion along the lines advocated by the hon. Member for Bedford. It is not realistic in terms either of personnel or of capital investment to embark on the kind of nuclear programme which has appeared in recent European energy documents. We should make sure not only that the industry is in the right shape but that our processing, supportive industries are capable of providing the fuels we need and of dealing with the nuclear wastes which will inevitably increase with an enlarged policy. We should be able to capitalise on our investment in enrichment capacity and fuel technology in terms of world-wide expansion in nuclear power.
We are still awaiting the reorganisation and the reconstruction of the National Nuclear Corporation. Only yesterday my right hon. Friend said that he regarded this as a matter of some urgency, but we are entitled to ask him to be, in his own defence, a little more forthcoming about why there is such a long delay. Is it that those who were opposed to the decisions on the steam-generating heavy water reactors are procrastinating? Is it because some financial argument is going on behind the scenes about responsibility over the


AGRs? We cannot get moving on these matters until this is sorted out. The Secretary of State is in danger of being embarrassed by a delay for which he may not be responsible. It is about time he got a grip on the people responsible in order to produce a decision.
There are problems, particularly in my constituency, associated with any expansion of nuclear power generation—such as the disposal of waste and the safety and health of personnel in plants and in the communities surrounding them. Wind-scale, which is probably the most complex nuclear installation in the United Kingdom, is in my constituency. It is a name which is bandied about a great deal these days in the media and even in the House by many people who have only a limited knowledge of its location, let alone what is going on there.
I certainly deplore in the strongest possible way the scaremongering which is damaging not only to the interests of the industry but to the interests of the people involved in it and to the interests of our energy policy generally. I deplore particularly the kind of cheap sensationalism that some newspapers have brought to the subject recently. There are no doubt problems about the disposal of plutonium waste and about the size of the facilities we need to cope with this material. There are problems about the recovery of wastes which cannot be disposed of and there are problems about how to deal with the security of such materials.
I am most concerned about a number of recent incidents where safety has broken down and where there has been a systems failure, perhaps because of human error or perhaps because of a technological error. There have been incidents which have given rise to concern and it seems to me that a general attitude of slackness has crept in. This should be very seriously looked at. It could bring the industry into disrepute more than anything else.
I am a supporter of an enlargement of our nuclear programme, but I want in no small way to make clear that the health risks which appear to exist for the people who work in the industry must be treated seriously both by the Government and by the management of the industry. I am not suggesting that they

are not treated seriously or that people are not doing their statutory duty or meeting their legal obligations. There is a tendency on the part of some, however, to dismiss as without foundation the idea that health risks exist. The evidence we already have contradicts that attitude, and this is a problem which must be closely watched. The protection of workers and their families has to be the paramount consideration in this industry.
In considering the expansion of the nuclear power generation programme, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should ensure that there is an appropriate amount of investment in plants such as Windscale or that the extra capacity is available to deal with reprocessing and waste handling. He must ensure that expansion does not lead to undue risk for the people who work in the industry. It is crucial that we should ensure that all those who work in the industry and the public are sanguine about their position.
I turn to the question of conservation policy. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I am a member, has been looking at this matter for some weeks. We are astonished at the plethora of bodies and committees which in one way or another advise the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend's initial interim statement was welcome. I believe, however, that we are getting into a situation in which a further statement should at least be in a state of preparation to tell us how the Government intend to follow up the first attempt at energy conservation. The psychological approach and policies of exhortation will have only a limited effect on people's attitudes and the time is opportune now for a further strengthening of the Government's demand that industry, commerce and the general public should conserve energy.
Are there any accurate energy use projections in the Department? Certainly some of the witnesses we on the Select Committee have interviewed seem to doubt this. We have been told that many companies, even major companies, do not know in any detail the facts of their energy use. They know only that they have a massive bill for energy, but they have no breakdown on the use of the energy and it is almost impossible for


them to respond to demands for conservation. They cannot tell where waste is taking place or where economies could be made. Since the major savings will obviously be made in industry, this matter must be given urgent attention.
We have been told in the Committee that undue interference by the Government would be intolerable. That is interesting because we were also told that in some circumstances perhaps the Government should come forward with incentives in the form of cash grants to encourage people to become conservation conscious. That is a kind of interference—and I have been led to believe that the last thing British industry wanted was a subsidy from the Government. One way or another, however, the Government must be able to get to grips with industries which are major users of energy.
We must be able to get to grips with the thousands of small companies which individually are not major consumers but which collectively offer substantial possibilities for energy saving. Here again, the important aspect is how the matter is approached. The Government should be considering codes of practice for various industries so that firm recommendations can be made to industrialists and targets set. I know that so far my right hon. Friend has set his face against targets, but the system has been used in other countries, notably France, with some success. I recognise that the targets will not always be met, but that is no reason for refusing to set a target.
The Government have taken a different approach on the question of petrol consumption where they have tried not only exhortation but extortion through price increases. The kind of energy saving produced by reductions in petrol consumption are almost negligible compared with the possible savings in industry and commerce. I see no sense in introducing a two-tier pricing system for petrol. That would militate against the very people whom it is sought to help by proposing it. That is especially true in the case of the rural areas. Allowances would have to be large enough to make it positively attractive for people to use petrol at the cheaper rate. However such a policy would be self-defeating.
The answer to the problem is to encourage people in rural areas to stop using cars and to use public transport. I should like to know what consultations the Department of Energy is holding with the Department of the Environment to co-ordinate the Government's attitude to energy policies and to public transport. I recognise that my right hon. Friend and his Department have made progress on nuclear energy and conservation in the past 12 months. I have attempted to push my right hon. Friend a little further on both those fronts, since a few more decisions are required from him and his colleagues. I hope that those decisions will be made in the near future.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am grateful for being called after the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) because I agree with much of what he said towards the end of his speech, especially with regard to energy conservation or, as I prefer to call it, a more rational use of energy.
Our standard of living is declining because we are living beyond our means. Our balance of payments is draining away and we are running up a vast burden of foreign debt, the interest on which will cripple us for generations. Yet that need not be so. We could be taking more vigorous action at least to reduce the energy element of the balance of payments deficit. We should take firmer and more purposeful action to save on oil imports.
The problem results from our past mistakes and from the lack of political will to help ourselves. It is related not only to this Government's inaction but to that of the 1950s and the 1960s, and it is the legacy of our reliance on cheap oil from abroad, which resulted in a rundown of our indigenous coal industry and brought about a lack of incentive to use energy more efficiently. That led to the allocation of far too small a proportion of capital investment in the more efficient production and consumption of energy.
The rundown of the coal industry, the lack of incentive for efficiency and the lack of capital investment have brought about the problems with which we are afflicted today. On top of that, cheap oil imports resulted in the neglect of modern transport systems and brought


about disincentives rather than incentives for research into and development of conservation projects.
We were also afflicted with political policies for which the present Opposition must take their share of the blame. On top of the cheap oil, the policy of subsidising energy aggravated our problems and distorted our energy consumption patterns during the previous years. That policy encouraged waste and caused the misapplication of research and development expenditure. Those legacies result in our being far less independent and secure and far more vulnerable than we need be.
The problems of the previous decades are no justification for saying that something could not have been done during the past 12 to 15 months, since the sudden quadrupling of the foreign oil price should have awakened us to the realities of the need to adopt an energy strategy.
This is my main charge against the Secretary of State. After more than a year there is still no integrated, co-ordinated, credible energy policy. The Secretary of State said on several occasions that the Conservative Opposition simply criticised the policies that had been adopted instead of offering constructive proposals. One reason we have not offered constructive proposals is that there has been no energy debate since December, when the Secretary of State offered his first package of conservation measures.
It is unjust to suggest that there have not been plenty of suggestions available to the Government in recent months. The Government have been inundated with sound technical advice from a vast variety of sources. In the light of that advice we must ask why so little has been done to implement it. The Central Policy Review Study on Energy Conservation was published in July and contained an excellent series of recommendations. The NEDO Report on energy conservation, which contained valuable proposals on which we could have acted, was published in December. We have received the OECD document on energy prospects to 1985, which was the result of extensive research work by a team of experts, and the EEC Commission issued a series of

working papers on the more rational use of energy.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The lion. Gentleman is in danger of misleading the House. All the documents to which he referred, and the central policy review document of last summer, point the way mostly to long-term savings. The conservation measures proposed in all those documents offer little savings by way of short-term measures. Therefore my right hon. Friend is correct to take a long view.

Mr. Rost: Although those documents propose longer-term solutions, they include a large number of small, but not insignificant, immediate short-term as well as long-term measures. I do not quarrel about that, since my argument relates both to short-term and longer-term policies.
In addition to the detailed technical recommendations, a plethora of committees and advisory bodies and expert bodies offer practical recommendations. The problem is that the effort has been diffused and the research work has not been integrated. Therefore I am not surprised that, rather than being able to arrive at a clear policy as a result of all the advice, the Secretary of State has become confused.
What should our national energy strategy be now? I suggest that there should be three fundamental objectives. First there should be an understanding and acceptance of the fact that there is no energy shortage. There is simply a problem that we waste too much of our energy.
The second fundamental point is that we should plan more vigorously to develop our indigenous and alternative resources.
The third is probably the most important of all, because without it the other two become irrelevant. It is that the Government must display political determination to devote a greater priority, a greater sense of effort and purpose and greater urgency to a co-ordinated effort to overcome these problems.
The real criticism which we should be making of the Government is that they have not shown the political will to get on with the short, medium or long-term


solutions. Therefore, I offer a few suggestions on the first of these fundamental objectives, which is the reduction of waste or a more rational utilisation of our energy resources.
It is disgraceful that the United Kingdom is the biggest consumer of energy in the Western world, in relation to gross domestic product. We are the biggest waster. Considering that we are also one of the poorest nations and have the biggest balance of payments deficit, it is all the more important that we should be top of the league in terms of energy consumption in relation to gross domestic product, rather than at the bottom of the league. The Secretary of State said yesterday that energy conservation was a hard slog. I agree. But we should be asking him when he proposes to put on his track suit.
There are no short-term magic-wand solutions, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, but there are many measures, each of which would produce a relatively small contribution to conservation but which cumulatively would make some contribution towards the EEC target of a 15 per cent. reduction in waste by 1985 and a 25 per cent. reduction by the turn of the century. Yet the measures announced so far as not expected to produce more than a 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. reduction in our energy consumption over the next year or so, and not even the most optimistic expert would suggest that the measures so far announced by the Government will produce anything approaching more than a 10 per cent. improvement in the situation by 1985.
That is not good enough. There are several areas for action, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider them. I list 10 of my own pet priorities.
The first is the recycling of heat. It is not good enough that we still generate power and that the CEGB is still putting up new power stations the most modern of which have a thermal efficiency of no more than 35 per cent. I know the problems of combining heat with electricity production. But other countries are overcoming them because they have the political will and determination to make some contribution to the economy in doing it. In Sweden, France, Germany, Russia and elsewhere electricity generation is now being combined with district heating or with the recycling of heat for

useful purposes. It will not do to continue this prolific waste. Therefore, one of my first points is that the Minister should be directing his efforts towards getting a more efficient conversion of our energy through our electricity generation.
Secondly, we should be doing more to encourage refuse incineration. It has been estimated that this would save between 6 million and 10 million tons of coal equivalent a year and produce favourable environmental side effects.
Thirdly, some contribution could be made by combining sewage with methane production. This is happening elsewhere, and there is no reason why we should not move towards it.
I turn to the development of alternative resources. None of these could make a major or immediate impact on our energy consumption, but over the years they could make an important cumulative contribution. I refer to solar heating, which it is easy to decry because of our climate. Nevertheless, research which is going on indicates that it can make a valuable contribution, and we should be getting on with it. We have wind power, tidal power, wave power, and looking at the longer-term, geo-thermal power. We should be devoting more research and development expenditure in these directions.
Fifthly, we should be doing more in transport by encouraging research into more efficient internal combustion engines and into the diesel engine. In addition, there are many other suggestions which would make a marginal medium-to long-term contribution.
Then we have the appalling situation with thermal insulation. Our record is the worst in Western Europe. Why have the Government still not made a determined effort to provide incentives for thermal insulation of our buildings. I give one example. Those householders who spend money on improved insulation are penalised subsequently by being re-rated for improved central heating, double glazing, storm porches or whatever else they spend money on. This is not an incentive; it is a disincentive. Why is not there more encouragement for rented accommodation and council accommodation to provide improved insulation? More thought should be devoted to this area.
Next I come to energy auditing and calculating consumption. This applies mainly to industry. Here we can achieve short-term benefits. One example is that of Marks and Spencers, which has achieved a 15 per cent. reduction in energy consumption simply through good housekeeping.
Auditing energy, calculating consumption and advertising consumption could make a major contribution in giving the consumer advice on whether he was getting value for money. A motor manufacturer advertises the petrol consumption of his car, and this is a sales point. Why does not the builder of a house advertise its thermal efficiency and point out how advantageous it is to spend a few hundred pounds more buying that house because it will produce economies in heating bills? The same applies to domestic appliances. The energy consumption should be advertised so that the consumer can see whether he is getting value for money by comparing one product with another. In our industrial processes as well energy consumptions can be advertised so that we know where we are.
Then there is the question of reversing the electricity tariffs. This is a difficult problem, but something could be done here to discourage waste by the larger consumer and to encourage greater efficiency.
We should also be doing more by providing incentives to industries. I shall not elaborate this point because I know the Secretary of State has it well in mind, but one aspect of it is to give greater importance to energy consultants and their work. There is a shortage of them. Here I declare an interest, as a director of a company which involves itself in advising on electricity consumption. The application of energy consultants can make a tremendous contribution. The one example given in the NEDO Report is most significant.
A survey was done of 453 Government Department buildings. It was shown that in 306 of them, for an expenditure of just under £500,000 the fuel saving could be £250,000 a year—and that is at 1973 prices. That is an example of what can be done.
What holds us back? What stops us getting on with this programme? I believe that it is a fear by the Govern-

ment that in the public mind conservation might mean restrictions, hardship and cuts. Of course, the opposite is true. A more rational use of our energy will allow us to maintain our standard of living, improve our environment and provide major economic advantages. We should be advertising this more extensively.
In addition to the pathological fear of the Government that the people may think they are carrying on a "switch something off" campaign, what holds back the Government is a lack of political determination. The proper sense of priority has not yet been struck by the Government. We need a complete rethink and restructuring of the relationship between the Department of Energy and the nationalised boards.
The creation of a national energy board, which would help the Secretary of State, should be considered. We are all loth to recommend new bodies. This needs careful thought. At the moment we have an unco-ordinated series of monopoly nationalised energy industries—coal, gas, electricity and nuclear power. There is no co-ordinated planning or any capital investment programme directed from a central body.
To succeed with a national energy strategy we must have a more purposeful direction of research and development. We have to get away from the tubby holes of the nationalised industries, all squabbling with one another without reaching a co-ordinated programme in the national interest.
A national energy board could allocate Government expenditure on energy-saving investment. To give an example of what I mean by greater priority of capital investment, we are spending about £700 million a year on food subsidies, which do not produce an economic return. If we were to re-allocate that sum, in a Budget, to produce energy conservation, the economic return would be substantial. If Labour Members do not like the idea of cutting food subsidies they might consider cutting the budget of the Secretary of State for Industry. If the thousands of millions of pounds that are being spent on nationalisation were re-allocated towards a programme of energy conservation and the development of a national programme for an integrated energy


policy I believe it would produce a positive return to the economy and a substantial saving on the balance of payments.
An energy board would assist the Secretary of State by giving directions on energy saving and on the development of our indigenous resources. It would give directions, for example, on the conversion of electricity in a more economic way, and on research and development. It could provide more funds for technology in the coal industry, so that there might be more automatic coal mining and so that, perhaps, we could increase our coal production to about 250 million tons a year. That figure is not by any means up in the clouds.
In my view the Minister stands condemned because the measures he has announced so far are only tinkering with the problem. We have no co-ordinated energy strategy. There is a lack of overall direction. What is needed is a political decision to get to grips with the problem, more rational use and more efficient production of our energy resources, a national energy board with the backing of the Government to integrate and co-ordinate policy, a determination to move away from the antiquated structure of the 1950s to a modernised structure to fit the new situation, and, above all, a greater priority for public expenditure on research and development in the energy industries. This would produce a return to the economy and help the balance of payments.
Britain has the resources, the technology and the expertise. All we need is the political will to achieve sensible objectives. All that is lacking is a Minister with determination to face the problems instead of muddling through, praying for mild winters and docile unions. If the Secretary of State does not have that will, or cannot persuade his Cabinet colleagues, it is time that he resigned.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Education Act 1975

2. Arbitration Act 1975
3. Biological Standards Act 1975
4. General Rate Act 1975
5. Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY

Question again proposed,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

Mr. Speaker: I seem to detect from the length of speeches so far that the impression is that not many Members wish to speak. There are, in fact, quite a lot who want to catch my eye.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I shall adhere to your advice, Mr. Speaker, and keep my eye on the clock. I understand that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is suggesting the creation of another National Enterprise Board. The new Leader of the Opposition would be turning cartwheels if she thought that one of her back benchers was an advocate of yet another NEB.
Much of what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East said is right. It reminds me of the old question: where do all the flies go in winter? Equally we may ask: where do the Tory backbenchers who spend the whole of their lives in Opposition rejecting the pressures and ideas to which the hon. Member has just referred go during periods of Tory Government? Of course the hon. Member is right, and he ought to stand up and be counted and tell his Front Bench what he thinks of it. It has had a miserable record over the years. Many hon. Members have consistently argued for thermal efficiency and other such factors in the development of an energy strategy.
This debate is about an effective energy strategy and how we can induce industries to take on more muscle and to convert more horse-power into raising living standards. That is what energy is about. We have an appalling record. Our economic debates and the miserable investment performance of the Treasury over the years have dominated investment policy. We are now paying the price.


The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East is right when he says that our performance is far below that of our European competitors. It all comes down to an investment programme. Unless we get our energy strategy right we cannot expect growth in the economy.
We are not only talking about electricity generation. We are talking about steel, plastics and chemicals, and all derivatives. To get that right we must get our priorities in power generation right. At the moment our industry is starved of horsepower and muscle which we desperately need.
In view of the shortness of time I shall make one or two brief comments about the three lines along which the debate has progressed. I am astounded to discover that the Coal Board is now searching for a way to devise a contractual arrangement next year so that we can import 5 million tons of coal. This nation is built on coal. We have the most magnificent coal. There are thousands of miners willing to dig it out. Yet we have to import 5 million tons. That is one issue over which the TUC ought to play hell. Its protest should be directed against the imposition of such an import. Likewise, the National Union of Mineworkers should concern itself about the import of such a large amount of coal next year. I hope that it will take issue on that matter.
If we are to create the confidence in the industry that I believe is necessary, perhaps it comes better than from myself as a non-miner—somebody outside the coal industry—to tell the Government that they should now be giving assurance to the mining industry by guaranteeing it a contract over, say, 20 years. I suggest that the two Front Benches should get together and agree that whichever party is in government will jointly guarantee the British mining industry a contract of 20 or more years at an output per year which will safeguard living standards. We should be generous to the limit with the miners, because so much depends upon them. We have not been generous so far. Despite the criticisms about the recent wage settlement in the industry, there is nothing generous about it. We should give this confidence to the industry by giving it not a social contract but a coal contract covering many years. The

miners will then be able to enjoy higher living standards for contracting to produce for industry the energy resources that we need from under the ground. Coal is our chief source of energy and we should recognise it and commit ourselves to a contract of that kind.
If the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) had any stature, he would welcome the opportunity of getting together with the Government and other parties in the House and formulating an arrangement to guarantee the miners a future in which they can have the fullest confidence.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will read the speech that I made in the debate on European energy policy, he will see that I put forward such a proposal. The Kissinger initiative for some kind of floor price or guaranteed return for high-cost energy sources seems to offer considerable hope for the coal industry, and it was welcomed by the Government.

Mr. Atkinson: Indeed, but it was open to misunderstanding in the context in which those remarks were made. The right hon. Gentleman ought to clarify the aspects which apply to British miners. I suggest that he should tell the Minister that the Opposition have sought and obtained the co-operation of all other parties, including the Nationalists, to agree that, whichever party is in government the miners can be assured of the kind of future to which I now recall the right hon. Gentleman referred in his remarks about which he has reminded me.
I pass now to the oil situation. Here again we have a rather curious position. We find that many large contracts for central heating installation are still going ahead based on oil. Municipalities throughout the country, Government Departments, and some large sections of industry are still installing oil-fired central heating. That seems quite idiotic in the present situation. It is shortsighted, to say the least. Whatever our potential may be beyond 1980, we should be reorganising that part of our industry which is responsible for the installation of oil-fired central heating. To be going ahead with the wasteful use of oil in that way is most revealing.
Turning to the Government's policy on oil-fired generating stations, I should like to quote from a letter which I have received from the Minister. It states:
In addition to the three stations already under construction totalling 6,300 MW installed capacity (Isle of Grain, Ince B and Littlebrook D) the Board have received Section 2 consent and deemed planning permission for two more oil-fired steam stations totalling 5,320 MW installed capacity (Killingholme, Lincs, and Inswork Point near Plymouth), but capital investment approval has not yet been granted. The Board have also sought consent for oil-fired stations at four other sites totalling 6,900 MW installed capacity, and these applications are being considered.
The final paragraph, which is very important, states that:
Whether any or all of these stations go ahead depends on a number of factors, including forecasts of electricity demand and fuel policy considerations, as well as planning issues where consents have not already been granted.
Within the qualifications in that final paragraph there is a great deal of worry about an energy strategy based on an oil programme of that kind in electricity generation. There is there an enormous installed capacity of 18,520 MW over a not very long period, but that seems contradictory in itself and the Cabinet must seriously review the question of where we are going with such a programme.
Again, with the qualification in that letter, even if only half of that installed capacity gets the go-ahead, it is still a defeat for the advocates of nuclear power in getting anything like a balanced strategy. Therefore, serious questions arise on the use and the future of oil in both electricity generation and the provision of heat throughout industry and in some of our commercial developments.
Finally, I turn to the question of nuclear power on which, tragically, if we look at the matter arithmetically, we are going backwards. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that Minister after Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and thrilled the House with talk of grandiose schemes and the great ambitions which were to be achieved within our lifetime. We were to have maginficent schemes beyond 1984. Nuclear power would take over, and give us the millenium. Our living standards were to reach towards the clouds as a result of the great investment programme which

was to bring the great miracle of nuclear power to the people of Britain.
Despite all the promises of not so long ago, of 20,000 MW by 1975, we just tottered on to something less than 5,000 MW with the Magnox programme, which was of a limited kind. We all recognise why that was so. We are still living with the AGR 5,000 MW, which is another area in which we had great ambitions for broadly-based developments of one kind and another. But here we are with Hinckley B and the problems about which we have often talked. I am informed that we are likely to get the first fuel charge at Hinckley B before very long. I am assured by physicists that from the first fuel charge we should get sufficient monitored information coming back within five or six months to take a fundamental decision on the AGR programme, so there is no need to go on to the projected two-year monitoring period that seems to be suggested by many people before coming to a decision on it.
If that is the case, we shall again get this dreadful vacuum between the decision being taken about the heavy water design and the AGR programme coming forward. We shall again get one of the suspended non-decision periods. We ought to be pressurising the Department to start telling the engineers that they should come up with advice about the AGR programme within the period of the first charge, which is less than six months.
What has happened to our heavy water programme? We are now cut to 4,000 MW, and this is a mere chicken, or even less than a chicken, of what was originally envisaged. What was envisaged has nearly disappeared off the paper. We had great hopes, and we must ask ourselves who is responsible for all this. Who is sabotaging Britain's nuclear programme?
It does not take a great deal of vision to see that not far removed from the decision making are two old buddies who are enemies not only of the heavy water programme but of many more ideas that have been discussed in connection with the energy strategy. I refer to Arthur Hawkins, the Chairman of the CEGB, and Lord Aldington, who, as many older


Members will recollect, was known as Toby Low.

Mr. Evelyn King: It is not my intention to defend Arthur Hawkins, but what he asked for by way of nuclear stations was divided by three by the Government.

Mr. Atkinson: Yes, but we have to start now and probe a little deeper into the question of who is responsible. This is the age-old difficulty of the relationship between the chairman of a board and the Government, and particularly the Minister. What is that relationship? Who is responsible for taking decisions? What degree of intervention is expected from the Government, whether it be in the actions of Monty Finniston in steel or of somebody in the National Coal Board? What is the situation with regard to other public boards? What is our relationship with the CEGB? Who is taking the decisions? Why is there all this delay?
Conservative Members point to the Government and say that the responsibility lies with them. If that is their view, we should not place too much credence on some of the things that are said about policy decisions remaining with the board. If the Government are to be responsible, there must be a different type of board structure from what we have at present. The criticism made by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has a hollow ring when one realises that he has accused the Government of neglecting some of the areas and pre-empting decisions previously taken by the board. We know that there is the difficult issue of who is responsible for the programme, but we know, too, that it has almost come to a stop.
The Government have taken a decision on the heavy water programme. Lord Aldington, who is Chairman of the National Nuclear Corporation, and Arthur Hawkins, the Chairman of the CEGB, were opposed to that decision, and the board has shown no enthusiasm for it. Nothing has been taken to the drawing board. No initiatives have been taken, other than two formal applications for planning purposes, not for design purposes. That is the only action that has been taken, and one reason for the lack of enthusiasm is that the two people

whom I have mentioned are hoping that the whole business will be delayed for so long that they will be back in business with their light water reactor programme. That is my conclusion. Who is responsible for that state of affairs?
If the Chairman of the CEGB and the Chairman of the NNC are deliberately dragging their feet in order to change the nuclear strategy, they ought to be sacked. Therefore, we are in order in saying to Arthur Hawkins, particularly, "Come clean. Tell us exactly where you, as chairman of the board, stand. What is your intention in all this? What initiatives are you taking? What are you prepared to do to implement the programme which you announced in December 1973?".
On 20th December, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) quoted the evidence given by Arthur Hawkins, who said:
we are saying at the moment that we would like to order in 1974 two stations, and that we would like to order in 1975 one station, another in 1976, another in 1977, two in 1978 and two in 1979—nine new stations—and nine more from 1980 to 1983, which is looking a long way ahead."—[Official Report, 20th December 1973; Vol. 883, c. 2017.]
It may be looking a long way ahead, but what has happened to the ideas that were being nurtured in the board at that time? This is a massive part of our energy strategy, but because the Minister took the decision that he did about heavy water reactors and utilising British design capacity these two people have become peeved and do not want to know.

Mr. Hannam: Is it not a fact that once the decision was taken by the Government the Chairman of the CEGB involved himself totally in accepting that decision and set up an investigation into the safety and design of the SGHWR, which so far has operated as a small prototype? Before he can go ahead with a major programme a great deal of research has to be carried out, and it would be unfair to attribute the delay to some reticence on the part of Sir Arthur Hawkins to accept the decision which has been taken.

Mr. Atkinson: There is sufficient knowledge among our eminent physicists and engineers to be assured that they have the ability to extend the development of


heavy water reactors. The prototype is comparatively small, but this is the case with many engineering designs. By comparing a model of that size with the ultimate development it is possible to be assured that we are doing the right thing in the design construction. This is not an unknown phenomenon in this sort of situation, and there is sufficient assurance to enable us to feel that we should get on with the heavy water design and produce something far in excess of 4,000 MW. If it is safe to go for 4,000 MW, it is safe to go for 12,000 MW, because 4,000 MW going wrong can do a lot of damage. Would the hon. Member not accept the logic that it is the size of programme relative to safety that is important. The fundamental decision taken was to go ahead whatever the size of the original model—because the safety project is the same whatever the size in this sense.
Our criticism is, therefore, that we should have seen something more coming out of that decision. But we find that the blockage is not with the Minister. From all I have heard, he is exonerated. It is he who has been trying to pressurise the industry into thinking far bigger than 4,000 MW. It is the Minister who is trying to push the thing on but cannot get it on the drawing board. That is the great criticism, and that is the situation as it now stands.
I am sorry to have rambled on, Mr. Speaker, but I shall finish on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) in talking of the disposal of radioactive waste. I believe that that subject is creating fears and anxieties about our nuclear development that are unnecessary when they get out of proportion. It may be that some members of the Liberal Party are responsible for presenting that deliberately, as some kind of conservationist lobby. They are concerned, as we are all deeply concerned, about the protection of people, but they are using this one issue of the disposal of radioactive waste. Here, again, engineers have agreed that no technological difficulties are involved. The physicists have said that there is nothing unknown about the methods to be used, including the liquefaction of waste. But there may be a fear about taking short cuts and trying to

save money. As long as the Treasury keeps its nose out and allows the engineers to deal with the problem the nation can be assured that no problems are likely to arise.
The message from this debate to the Minister should be that we should concentrate all our efforts on making sure that we utilise to the full our engineering resources, and to tell the heavy electrical engineering industry that it can have all the credits it requires. Let us get some of these stations under way now, because the generation plant, the turbines and the rest, make up the kind of equipment about which we know a great deal. Let us get on with the manufacture of that equipment and place big orders with the heavy electrical engineering industry.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does my hon. Friend think that that is really possible, having regard to the fact that the Chairman of the CEGB made it very clear before the Select Committee that he had no intention of embarking on this kind of programme? Until we get rid of him we are not likely to do much.

Mr. Atkinson: I have already referred to the performance of Mr. Arthur Hawkins and Lord Aldington. Let it be known very clearly in this House from now on that many of us will work together to bring about the dismissal of this man if he is standing between ourselves and the creation of a nuclear policy. So, to the Minister the message should be, "Yes, we are in favour of allocating a far greater part of our national resources to the development of our nuclear ideas, and let us hope that from now on we can get on with it".

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: May I say at once how very much I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)? I had the impression that he was delivering two speeches. During the part of the first I was out of the Chamber but I believe I heard him advocate an increased use of coal on a substantial scale, on which I cannot go along with him. On the second part of his speech, on the nuclear programme, I believe he was first rate.
May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his first efforts? In so


far as I am critical, most of my criticism falls not upon him but upon the last five, 10 or even 15 years although it might be said that during the last year he could have speeded things up more than he has.
Before moving to the major issues confronting the House I would say a word on energy conservation in one particular context, that of rural transport. I am glad that some civil servants are among those listening to me because in two spheres I shall mention I am desperate about the ability of this country to govern itself, about the sheer incompetence in government. I do not mean purely the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or the Civil Service, but the lot put together. On sheer incompetence there is a good deal to be said this afternoon.
I turn first to transport. It must be some four years since I first wrote about and raised in this House the possibility of villages having their own bus services and of arranging, as has been long arranged in India, for postal buses and transport to amalgamate into mini-bus passenger transport in the villages, with four or five other similar suggestions. Feeling that four years was a reasonable period to have elapsed, I wrote again to the present Minister and got a letter which was almost a rubber stamp of that which I had had four years before, saying that these ideas were very good, had been investigated and were being examined, and that, no doubt, in time action might be taken.
I have no very high opinion of myself, but I honestly believe that if I were put into a room to examine these things I could in eight days produce a result. Why cannot Government do so? Do we seriously maintain, does anyone maintain, that it takes four years to say whether we can or cannot do these things? Meanwhile villages suffer.
The price of petrol has become exorbitant. It will soon interfere gravely with the work of persons living distant from their employment. After four years the Government might have done something about it, but nothing has been done. Admittedly, within the major context of energy conservation this may seem a small point, but if we are to debate energy and its conservation I hope that that is

not typical of the approach of Government. That is my lesser point.
I turn now to my bigger one. To simplify what I have to say and to shorten my remarks—as I know will appeal to you, Mr. Speaker—I will deal only with three major methods of producing electricity. I often wish his godfathers and godmothers had not given the Minister the name which he has in office. At the weekend one of my constituents asked me whether I would speak in the House this week and I said I would if I could. I was asked on what subject I would speak and I said on energy. A glaze came over the eyes of my constituent who had not the least idea of what it was. I then said "I am going to talk about the cost of electricity and your cooking." The glaze fell from her eyes. I went on to say—and I believe it to be true—"If your electricity bills are rising, as they are, and are to rise still more over the next two years, it is due to incompetence and nothing else."
We produce electricity by three major means—coal, oil and nuclear power. At this moment they are the only three that matter. One would suppose that someone would sit down, look at all three and decide objectively which is the most efficient. Were anyone to do so, he would come up with these results. At the moment 25 per cent. of our electricity consumption derives from oil. The cost per unit of oil-produced electricity is 55p. It has gone up by 38 per cent. in a year and is certainly going up still more; and it is a most dangerous method of production upon which to depend.
Passing on to coal, he would note that it provides 63 per cent. of our current production and costs 53p per unit, a cost which is rising rapidly and is likely soon to overtake that of oil. He would surely note that coal production is hideously at risk every year of ceasing altogether. The Minister was proud that this had not happened this year and I am delighted, too, but he would know that the risk is ever present. He would note that in a humane context there is no argument at all for increased coal production. I was brought up in the atmosphere of the 1926 General Strike and was taught that the job of coal mining was harsh and uncomfortable, that scientific advance in a civilised society meant that there was every chance of


coal production ceasing in our lifetime, and that that would be the best thing in the world.

Mr. Rost: Would my hon. Friend take into account the technology of the coal industry, which, if it evolved as it could, would mean that there would be no reason why we should not automate mining with robot machines? It is not beyond our technology, if we only allocated a little more capital development to research into it.

Mr. King: I gave way before I had finished this point. I accept that that is true to some extent, but I was talking of the humane context rather than the economic. In that context the argument for any other means of power than coal wins the day every time. Forgetting the humane context and turning to the economic, it is true that some coal production is necessary for coking and other purposes, but the fact remains that the cost of coal-generated electricity is 53p per unit. The cost of nuclear power is 52p per unit. It produces 10 per cent. of our electricity, less than any other method.
This relatively intelligent body of men whom I envisage trying to take an objective decision would note that we are putting most of our money into the most expensive, most uncomfortable and least reliable method. To the nuclear method, which is dependable, has practically no labour troubles and has civilised methods of work, offering opportunity to skill and inventive genius, we offer practically nothing.
If anyone doubts that, I would ask him to compare what happens in the United States with what happens here. In seven years, if we are lucky, we shall build three nuclear stations which will produce a little under 4,000 megawatts. In the United States, where the problems are much greater than ours, they intend to build 200 stations. Does not that fact alone imply that we are making the most ghastly misjudgment?

Mr. Skeet: I wish they would listen.

Mr. King: I am not placing the blame on the Minister. Some of his decisions in the last few months and those he likely to take in the next few may not be valid, but the major responsibility

rests on his predecessors—and not just his political predecessors. But that does not absolve him from putting more energy behind the nuclear drive than I see any sign of his doing.
Although I have no financial interest in this subject, Winfrith is in my constituency. I am proud of the fact that the reactor which the Secretary of State has chosen as the right one was developed there. Many of my constituents are scientists and engineers who take great pride in what they have created and in the contribution that they can make to the major problems of our time. They also think that they are being neglected.
My last word is perhaps the least pleasant, but it should be said. I hope that these decisions are being taken upon their merits. If it were to be thought that the £1,400 million to be invested in coal and the attendant lack of interest in nuclear power had been decided not objectively but because of political pressure by the National Union of Mineworkers, this would be deeply resented, not only here but throughout the country. I have long had a great admiration for coal miners—greater than for some of their leaders. I beg the right hon. Gentleman in all his decisions to bear in mind what I have thought it right to say.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I want to avoid as much as possible repeating comments which have already been made. That will be my major contribution to brevity.
When we debate energy we spend far too much time making short, sharp, irrelevant political points. This is not what the country wants. Those who are concerned about this subject want the House of Commons to reflect the magnitude of the problem. They want to be able to feel that the House is determined not simply on an interesting debate but on some action to meet the serious crisis which is practically upon us.
Unless we have a positive policy and attitude and a clear frame of mind in the next five years at least, the magnitude of this problem, which will be crystal clear by the 1990s, will mean that many solutions available to us will be taken out of our hands, with consequent dire problems for the whole economy. The first step towards that aim, producing,


perhaps imperceptibly, a mark of public concern, has already been taken in the appointment of the Secretary of State. It would be too much in the short time that he has been in office to expect the kind of results that I have described, but I hope that all parties will co-operate in achieving that clear direction to which I have referred.
First, therefore, we must have a national energy policy. Once we have said that, we must describe in general terms what we mean by it.
The first objective is to get rid of the competition between the sources of fuel—coal, gas, oil and electricity. This has been a factor which has brought about part of the present crisis. We must get rid of the duplication of services. If we do not, we shall be wasting energy, anyway. And must decide the best possible uses for the fuels available to us. Our national energy policy can, therefore, start with that prime objective—how best to clear the decks in order that our fuel can be put to proper uses.
Second, it is important that the Secretary of State adds to the valuable work that he has already done by examining very closely the waste of time and energy in the inter-departmental committees, of which there are far too many. Men of considerable ability sit on committee after committee. When we ask for their conclusions or to see what they have achieved, the answer is often very vague, leaving us to assume that there must be no conclusions or that nothing has been achieved. There must be a look at the abundance of various other committees which advise industry, local authorities and the Government. There are so many of them that it would take a whole speech to list them, let alone to find out exactly what they are doing.
I would hope that such a national energy policy would carry with it some form of streamlined process of advice, to see what should be the advice and to determine what investment programmes are needed, so that we could see at once whether the course of action, such an energy policy is bent upon, is meeting the changing tides of the times.
I should like to give some indication of some of the precise things which can be done. There is a need for a massive programme to be undertaken in relation

to electricity aimed at the utilisation of low-grade waste heat from power stations. There is no dissent on either side of the House about that kind of objective. Certainly we need to introduce techniques and processes which will facilitate the efficient use of power plants' waste heat when those plants are remote from areas of high consumption. That could not he doubted. It should be something on which to start working now.
In electricity, among the many things which can be done—I am picking merely a few—because of the high transmission losses and the cost of electricity distribution through the grid, alternative methods and schemes for transporting energy are possible, in particular in pipelines. That kind of possibility should be investigated and reported upon.
On the question of space heating and domestic uses, it is quite clear that at present we have a situation in which there should be a policy of financial incentives, investigatory and investment programmes set afoot in order to deal with inefficient systems which have to be replaced. We need to produce building construction systems which incorporate features aimed at maximising the use of solar energy for internal temperature control. District heating is a must, and it must be enlarged upon—there have been considerable successes in this respect—in particular in order to deal with the waste heat where district heating programmes do not exist.
Nothing has been said about agriculture in the debate. It seems clear that modern agricultural methods are demanding—it is logical that they should demand—considerable use of energy for machines, fertilisers and chemicals. In the most advanced operations, increases in energy use can be disproportionate to crop production increases. There is an analogy of a cash flow problem. When someone in business presumes that he has a large order book he works very hard, but if he does not understand his cash flow problem he may nevertheless well be on the way to bankruptcy. A use of energy disproportionate to the return on the crop production is a consideration which must be borne in mind.
I want to draw abruptly to a close. On the subject of transport and communica-


tion, we should examine the use of electronic communication techniques and develop efficient and reliable urban public transport systems in order that we can deal with the problems of private motoring in our city centres. Certainly we should consider the use of railway, waterway and pipeline transportation for long-distance goods movements. These objectives should be encouraged. Diesel engines, too, should be encouraged. There is a place for them, particularly in commercial vehicles.
I have not touched on the industrial uses of energy because the House is quite clear on that matter. We have repeated time and again today that in industry there is considerable scope for the conservation of energy. Energy savings of up to 20 per cent. can be achieved if notice is taken of the recommendations which have been made available by the Government and other sources.
In this debate on energy it has not been possible to give particular clear-cut guidelines of action, but the direction and shape of things must come from this debate. I hope that from the concluding moments of this debate the country will be able to feel tomorrow that at least there is some unanimity in the House about what is needed for the country's economic prosperity.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: No doubt the Minister will be rather pleased to know that in terms of a nuclear energy policy I shall be a great deal less critical than has every other speaker so far. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King), who was a former Member for my parliamentary constituency—although I am sorry that I do not recollect it, because I was about one year old when you gained the seat and about six when you lost it—

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman should refer to "the hon. Member."

Mr. Speaker: I had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Penhaligon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The request made by the hon. Member for Dorset, South was that we should look at this matter with cool logic.

Certainly that is to be desired. From listening to the Opposition Front Bench at the start of the debate, I was afraid that once again we had an undercurrent of a sort of hysteria of hate that I have heard expressed on Conservative platforms against the coal miners. It seemed to me that this sort of historical, politically-biased opinion was affecting the Opposition's view.
We had a debate a fortnight ago when the basic point before us from the EEC was the suggestion that in the year 1985. Europe will manufacture 46 per cent. of its electricity by means of nuclear power. I said then that I believed that there was no need for Europe to panic itself into producing its electricity by nuclear power. I stand by that position. Although I think that the British Government must continue its research and, indeed, set up some power stations to ascertain the basic difficulties which do or do not exist, the day has not yet arrived when a massive programme to commit ourselves to the production of 46 per cent. of our electricity by nuclear power by 1985 is in the least realistic. Frankly, I doubt whether Europe will manage it. Having some regard for the technical problems, I do not believe that even with the determination expressed European countries will get anywhere near that figure by that year.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that the Liberals had been guilty of stirring the conservation and safety issue. I hope that we are not accused of doing so for ulterior motives. It seems that the risks are real. I have had some technical experience and I have read about some suggested methods of disposal. Liquefaction was mentioned. I have heard that we should store nuclear waste at the bottom of the sea. I have also heard it suggested that we should put it in rockets and launch the rockets towards the sun. In fact, that is the only way in which we can definitely destroy the waste, given our present level of technology. I am not opposing that suggestion, but there is a real possibility that such a launch might in some way be a disaster and that the rocket might never get to its destination. That is a real problem, which some hon. Members have decided to ignore.
The documents that I have read that have been published in the United States


suggest that the problem will be a great deal in the public's mind in the next 10 or 15 years. It is without doubt that somewhere in the world there will be an accident involving nuclear power. I ask the Government to make progress slowly—I believe that they are adopting that approach—and to ensure that the accident does not occur in this country. There is no doubt that by the turn of the century a great deal of our electricity will be produced by nuclear power. There is a danger of going ahead too quickly before we have carried out the necessary experiments to determine the risk.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman carries a tremendous responsibility in creating anxieties of this sort. Does he not realise that the tendency nowadays is to bring nuclear power stations much nearer to the centres of population? What he should now be doing is placing his confidence in the industry and giving some reassurance to the people who are living near nuclear installations so that they do not have the sort of fears that he has expressed.

Mr. Penhaligon: Unfortunately, dangers do not disappear by not talking about them. I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the movement of nuclear power stations towards our centres of population will take place. If we are to have district heating schemes, that movement must be encouraged. I do not make this point for party political reasons, but I wonder whether our technology of safety has reached a level at which it can be said that no dangers exist.
The fact is that in the world today there are hydrocarbon fuels readily available for producing electricity in plenty. We have coal and North Sea oil. We also have gas, some nuclear power capacity and some hydro-electric capacity. Those resources add up to a potential abundance of energy for producing electricity.
We have mentioned North Sea oil at some length. I am not an expert on the financial implications of North Sea oil. Basically we all want the oil as quickly as possible. I have no wish to enter into the argument about the way in which it should be taxed. I once heard a Labour Member say that he was prepared to have the coming on shore of North Sea oil

put off for a year or 18 months, provided that the public participation was right. I am glad that that is not the Government's policy. If that were the position I would oppose it with some enthusiasm. We can always get a larger stake at any stage in the production of North Sea oil if we choose to do so. We could nationalise it at a later date if we thought that was the right course to take. At present, the desperate need is to get the oil on shore as quickly as possible.
I draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in yesterday's copy of The Times. It pointed out that a large amount of oil had been found off the Brazilian coast. It read:
A field able to produce 200,000 barrels a day is being developed … about 200 miles north of Rio de Janeiro. Seismologists say that there are 13 areas which are of comparable richness adjacent to this strike. They expect that the whole complex will produce 2ô6 million barrels a day. This makes it perhaps the greatest offshore group of fields in the world.
The article says that it is believed that similar complexes could exist down the entire south coast of Brazil.
I am left in doubt when I hear some hon. Members saying that the great millenium is here merely because we are about to bring in the oil from the North Sea. I do not want to delay North Sea oil development. Indeed, I have specifically encouraged it. I merely point out that similar work is going on around the world and that coastal waters off Brazil are a great deal more pleasant to drill in and to explore in than our North Sea waters. The same comparison applies to the waters off the South-West. A risk exists so it is necessary to get the oil ashore and to use it as quickly as possible to overcome our present economic difficulties. Let us not be too worried at this moment about taxation and what will or will not be paid in six years' time, for example, on what may prove to be no great profit at all.
Another matter that must be considered during an energy debate is transport. Some weeks ago I asked which constituencies in Britain, according to the 1971 census, have populations in which less than 10 per cent. of the work force goes to work by public transport. It seems that there are 41 such constituencies. Some weeks before that I asked which constituencies in Britain have populations in which more than 45 per cent. of the


work force use cars to go to work. The lists of constituencies were almost the same in both answers.
In my constituency of Truro, according to the 1971 census, 7·7 per cent. of the population travel to work by public transport and 48 per cent. travel by car. That figure is not arrived at because of the great wealth of the people in my locality. If we consider the disposable income of the people of Cornwall we may well find that the figure, per capita, is the lowest of any of the counties in England. The reason that they travel by car and not by public transport is that very often public transport does not exist.
Some weeks ago I entered into correspondence with the chairman of my local county council. I suggested that some of the money now spent on the road-building programme in my county—this argument can be applied to virtually any rural part of the country—should be transferred and used to help the Western National Bus Company to revitalise some of its services or to make it unnecessary for the company to close any more of its services. The chairman of the council replied:
The recent Government Circular on Rates Expenditure has put the County Council and the bus operators in the County in a very difficult situation. … The position whereby the Government will neither assist the bus companies themselves nor allow Local Authorities to do so, nor allow fare increases sufficient to recover all the additional costs (because of the Price Code) is very invidious from the bus companies' points of view.
The Government issued their circular because they thought that some of the money being spent on providing cheap fares was not justified in the present economic climate. From their point of view that might be totally right, but the battle going on in my county is to maintain the services that now exist. I ask the Minister to look into that particular circle of nonsense and to try to point out to whoever is responsible for Circular 177 that in many rural areas it strikes the people who are trying to do something for public transport as total nonsense.
I have letters in my file on this matter—one, in particular, from a constituent who wishes not to be named. He goes into some detail about his financial problems. He outlines what he earns and

what it costs him to live. Without doubt he would be better off today by at least £1 a week if he decided to stop working and go on the dole. Transport costs and the price of petrol are such that in some rural areas a man in a low-paid job is better off on the dole than he is working. I was horrified to read in the Press about the suggested two-tier petrol price scheme. The basic premise seemed to be that for the whole country there would be so many gallons at a lower price and that extra gallons would be priced at any level that the Government happened to choose. Any such scheme must be biased towards areas where there is no public transport. For some time I have favoured a scheme by which tax allowances would be granted for costs involved in getting to work when no public transport was available.
If a variable road fund licence system is to be introduced—I see no basic objection to it—it should be based on brake horsepower and not on cubic capacity. A chart of the two will show that they are not by any means so connected as they are thought to be.
I have rather plagued the Minister with questions. I sought to discover what percentage of imported oil is used by the private motorist. It is difficult to get a straight answer to this question. One interpretation of the figures suggests that the private motorist who cannot claim back his VAT uses less than 7 per cent. of the oil we import. If he could be persuaded to reduce his mileage by 10 per cent., it would amount to a saving of 0·7 per cent. of imported oil.
The Minister says with great pride that this winter there has been no shut-down and no switching off of lights. The switching off in my area is being carried out by people who are affected by rising transport costs. Much misery has been caused. What is so magical about not turning off lights if we are talking of an energy saving by the private motorist of 0…7 per cent.? Why not turn some lights off?
There is no motorway within about 200 miles of my home, so in that sense I declare an inverse interest. On motorways we burn enough electricity to keep a town of about 15,000 people going. I do not suggest that all the motorway lights should be switched off for all the time, but what would be the harm, from a psychological


point of view, in turning them off for some hours of the day?
The Government's approach to district heating has been little short of pathetic.
I also asked the Minister to plot on a graph, and publish in the Official Report, the electricity demanded during a typical November day. Apparently the plotting of a graph is beyond the technicality of a Government. I asked to be told the number of hours a day when the amount of electricity demanded exceeded the capacity that could be generated by all fuels other than oil. The Minister said that they do not plot graphs and that he would get somebody to write a letter telling me.

Mr. Atkinson: They plot other things.

Mr. Penhaligon: Eventually I received a graph by the back door. I learned that there are only six hours a day during which the amount of electricity demanded exceeds that which can be generated by fuels other than oil. I spent some time on the graph trying to work out, as a percentage of the total power generated in the day, that which was generated during those six hours and what percentage was generated at a level above that which could be generated by fuels other than oil. The answer is certainly less than 10 per cent.
I also asked what the Minister had done to pressurise the National Coal Board into quarrying more coal. The jackpot reply I received was that it was not the Minister's responsibility. I learn from figures in Energy Trends that for at least five years we have been hovering at a figure of between 9·1 million and 10 million tons a year. There is room for great expansion.
In view of the tremendous recession which is taking place in the building industry a great deal of equipment is available which could be used for the opencast quarrying of coal, and some would say that that equipment was going cheap.
The evidence that I have succeeded in acquiring does not add up to a policy. For all that, I am glad that we have not gone in for the mad policy of building nuclear power stations like mushrooms.
The most obvious aspect of the Government's energy policy is the "Save It"

campaign. The great question must be why this campaign was not started months ago, when the public were in the right mood for saving energy. It was, perhaps, for political reasons, namely, that the Government did not want to be seen to be going in for the nonsense that we went in for just about a year ago.
If the "Save It" campaign will save money on imports, the question is: how much money have we wasted over the last nine months by not operating such a scheme? There is nothing very exotic about any of the methods of saving proposed. Better thermal insulation is mentioned. That is a longer-term project. I read in my local paper this week that my local council has decided that anybody who wants to foam-fill the walls of his bungalow must make an individual application for change of structure. Cannot we have an admission that the foam-filling of cavities is a satisfactory method and thereby allow it, or that the method is unsatisfactory and ban it? Surely local authorities need not consider every application for the foam-filling of cavity walls.
Better ventilation has been mentioned. When people talk about better ventilation they think about more ventilation. What is required is the control of air flow. One does not use the ventilation to control the temperature, which is what has been known to happen in this building. It appears that when it gets too hot here the required correction to the temperature—by edict of the Minister—is carried out not by turning down the heating but by opening windows slightly wider. What is required is far better control over the ventilation of buildings. Great saving could thus be effected.
The advertisements for the "Save It" campaign say that there should be better burners, and that they should be serviced. Why were not the public told that some months ago? The public are also told that cars will go further to the gallon if the ignition and carburation are checked regularly. Why could not the public have been told that some months ago? Will the Minister examine the possibility of including such a check in the annual MOT test? It is not difficult to carry out a carbon monoxide analysis of the exhaust to see whether a car is running correctly.
The Minister must seek to encourage a gradual transfer to diesel engines. He might be able to do so by having a differential rate for the road fund licence. There is much to be said for diesel engines. They are rather noisier, but that does not detract from their efficiency in transporting people by road.
Mention has been made of the recycling of waste. We must carry out this exercise more efficiently in regard to paper, minerals or any side product of the system. There are great savings to be made by making cars that last longer and by better recovery of waste material. It is not often realised how large a contribution such methods can make. It is a tragedy to see the present collapse of the waste paper market after all the efforts which, have been made by so many people. I shall listen with interest to the Government reply on this and other matters.
If the matter comes to a vote, on the long-term consideration I shall support the Government, but on the short-term problem as it affects the policies for rural areas I shall vote with the Opposition.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: It is interesting to note that once again hon. Members on the Liberal bench want the best of both worlds. In other words, they will support the motion if certain things happen. I believe that history will record that the present Secretary of State for Energy is a courageous man who has taken decisions which will have a profound effect on our country's future.
It is essential at the outset of my remarks that I declare a major constituency interest in this debate. In the Newton division I have two collieries and a large National Coal Board area office, and in total the NCB employs about 5,000 people. Also in my constituency at Risley is the headquarters of the Atomic Energy Authority Reactor Division; the headquarters of British Nuclear Fuels Limited; and the headquarters of the Nuclear Power Group which at present is designing the British SGHWR. In all about 5,000 of my constituents work in this important establishment. Therefore, it will be appreciated that many of my constituents have a great desire to see this country adopt an energy

strategy which is meaningful for the future and which safeguards the interests of the British people.
However, on this occasion I do not want to talk about energy policies in relaion to coal. I believe that at long last the prosperity of the coal industry is assured. I believe that for the first time miners and their families can look ahead to a prosperous future, provided that fatal accidents in the industry do not cut down the family breadwinner.
I want to turn the attention of the House to the nuclear power aspects of our energy policy. I wish to make it clear that all is not well within our nuclear power industry. Only last week on Thursday I received a delegation of three branch officers of the Nuclear Power Branch of the IPCS who presented a petition to the Secretary of State for Energy calling on him not to give the management contract of the new company to GEC. We made it clear to the Secretary of State that we saw no reason for a management contract having to be awarded to anybody. That petition was signed by 756 staff members of the Nuclear Power Group, over 80 per cent. of the total staff.
I received the impression that the Secretary of State had decided to award that contract to the GEC. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to issue a paper justifying to the House why the Government consider it essential to have a third party, complete with a management contract, interposed somewhere between two new organisations, the National Nuclear Corporation and the Nuclear Power Company which is supposed to have the job of running Britain's nuclear power station design and building industry, presumably for the next decade.
Are we not in danger of getting into a who-is-supposed-to-be-doing-what situation, and is there not a great danger that while the various organisations spend months arguing about who is supposed to be doing what the production of Britain's SGHWRs will fall behind schedule? We shall have the same old story of late deliveries, we shall be told what a hopeless nuclear industry Britain has and that we should buy American because their products are more efficient, and all the rest of it.
Will the Secretary of State publish the management contract once the details have been agreed between the parties? In that way the House, the industry, its workers and the nation can see exactly what the terms are and how much it is costing the people of this country.
I wish to make it clear that the stall and workers in the industry were delighted when the Secretary of State gave the go-ahead for the building of two SGHWRs, but they are still very concerned about the situation. I share the concern at the lack of progress in forming the new Nuclear Power Company. It is nearly two years since the original decision to form the new structure was announced, and no matter how hard the trade unions representing the various groups of workers have tried to obtain information about what is to happen, they meeet a brick wall of silence and evasion.
As the Secretary of State is aware, highly qualified staff of the Nuclear Power Group and the BNDC continue to leave their companies. I remind the House that one cannot build anything, let alone highly complex nuclear power stations, witthout highly skilled designers. Therefore, I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend the urgent necessity of settling the composition of the boards and managers of the NNC as quickly as possible to prevent further loss of staff who are irreplaceable. It is also essential that a decision be taken quickly about the siting of the Nuclear Power Company. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend handles this matter delicately or he will arouse a hornets' nest.
May I suggest that he should announce now that the headquarters of the Nuclear Power Company is to be situated in the North-West of England in the Risley area? It makes sound sense in terms of regional economic policy. I hope that the transfer of other staff will take place over an extended period in order to allow these men and women to adjust their lives more evenly to what, after all, is a major upheaval in their life-style and that of their families.
I wish to refer to the constant reports in the Press that a clearance certificate is imminent from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate for the American PWR and consequent fears among many of my con-

stituents that powerful men, with vested interests, will attempt to reinstall the PWR as part of the British programme of nuclear power stations. Will my right hon. Friend say how much work has been done by the NII on the study of the generic safety issues involved in the PWR? In July my right hon. Friend made clear that studies were being conducted by the NII into the PWR.

Mr. Varley: I think I can help my hon. Friend by saying that very little work has been done on the generic study of the LWR. The main work of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is being undertaken on the AGR working through to the SGHWR.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention. I assure my right hon. Friend that that news will be warmly welcomed by thousands of people in my constituency who work in the nuclear industry.
Successive Governments have desired and sought a unified and successful nuclear industry but have been very slow to find out and then implement their policies, with consequent demoralisation of the personnel who work in the industry. Those personnel are the lifeblood of the industry and we neglect them at our peril. It is worth remembering that many of these men have the finest brains in the world in this field.
If Britain is to have a successful nuclear power capacity, the programme as laid down by the Secretary of State must be implemented with urgency and support from everybody—but especially from those people at the very top. I know that the programme has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of the staff at Risley. However, I do not believe that Lord Aldington, Sir Arnold Weinstock and Mr. Hawkins are the right people to be in charge of Britain's nuclear power industry, given their known and publicly stated attitudes. It may be that I shall be taken to task for this, but I believe that they have a vested interest in proving that the Secretary of State has made the wrong decision.
It is essential that the NNC and the NPC be set up with all possible speed and preferably be Government-controlled. It is essential that the construction policies of the NNC be defined as a matter of the utmost urgency. I ask for urgent


consideration to be given to the siting of further stations. We have the go-ahead for two stations, but it is essential that we start considering now what further parts of the country are to have further SGHWRs. Urgent discussions should be started with those sections of British industry that would provide the components for the SGHWR programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has said quite clearly, this is of tremendous importance to British industry. It could have a profound effect on the regional strategies and policies of the Labour Government.
It is essential that industry should know what is required of it, because we can hardly expect it to produce components now, hoping that someone will order them from the shelf. Decisions must be taken, and industry must be brought into the discussions.
Most important of all, a supremo who believes in the SGHWR and British technology should be appointed to run the corporation, someone who is not burdened by past views on nuclear reactors. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to appointing such a man.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I like to think that this Government, and indeed all Governments, are capable of learning from their own experience and mistakes, and from the mistakes of other countries in formulating energy policy. We should see some signs of this. Today we have seen just a little sign that the Government are becoming aware of the facts of life, with the announcement of the rate of petroleum revenue tax. After the banshee howling from the Government benches for months, there is now a considerable touch of realism, as Ministers in the Department of Energy and the Treasury appreciate that the companies operating in the North Sea must receive a fair and reasonable return on their investment and the money they are putting at risk there.
The Government are beginning to understand the need to provide incentives to operators in the exploration for, and production of, North Sea oil, and to realise that a fair return on capital must be a prime incentive to the companies

operating there. I hope that the Government are moving away from the idea that they are doing the oil industry a favour by allowing it to invest its resources in the North Sea, especially when the North Sea is compared to those other parts of the world where all the oil companies are perfectly free to place their investment and to indulge in the exploration for, and production of, oil.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) mentioned some of the places where development and exploration opportunities are available to the oil companies. These include Brazil, the outer continental shelf of the United States, which is a vast area, China, Mexico and many countries in the Pacific and elsewhere.
I hope that Ministers are learning, when they look at what is happening in countries overseas, about the change in attitudes that has taken place in other Governments. Norway is an outstanding example. In the oil debate in this country Labour Members and Members of the Scottish National Party have constantly pointed to Norway as the example of how to extract the maximum amount of taxation from oil companies and to minimise production levels. At one time Norway was talking about a 90 per cent. rate of taxation, but this has come down considerably during the past few months. The amount of production that Norway has decided to exploit in the North Sea has risen substantially, by almost 50 per cent., from approximately 50 million tons to over 70 million tons a year. This is a touch of realism which I welcome. I hope that the Government will continue to show a more realistic attitude to the companies, and to the levels of production and taxation that are necessary for the North Sea.
I hope that this realism will extend to some practical points. Other hon. Members have been talking at some length about the nuclear programme and other aspects of energy policy, but I would like to question the extent of the co-ordination between the Department of Energy and other Government Departments, especially in relation to onshore developments in Scotland. For example, has the Secretary of State for Energy interested himself in the need to improve facilities at Dyce airport? Has he approached the Department of Trade or the Civil Aviation


Authority to express the urgent need of upgrading the airport to meet the demands of industry? The Secretary of State could reply that that is entirely the responsibility of other Departments, but if we have anything approaching a comprehensive Government policy on oil, I hope that the Department of Energy will take a serious interest in problems of this kind. If there were some evidence that the Department of Energy was looking at practical problems of this kind, we should be able to take more seriously the Minister's claims that Britain will achieve self-sufficiency by 1980.
Another practical problem is the question of the supply ships in the North Sea and the flags that they carry. An article in the Sunday Times on 2nd February pointed out:
Most North Sea contractors are American and they deal with the people they know. Out of the 100 or so boats U.S. companies have chartered for the 1975 season, only 10 will probably be British.
I know that the matter is not a specific responsibility of the Department of Energy, but it is part of our energy problem. I would like the Department to consider the discrimination that American shipping law applies in the United States, and to see to what extent we may give some protection and priority to supply boats in the North Sea flying the British flag.
These are some of the areas where the Secretary of State could show a more energetic approach to some of the important day-to-day problems facing industry on shore, even though they are not part of his normal departmental duties.

Mr. John Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that the Government should introduce legislation to prohibit the use of supply vessels which do not fly the British flag?

Mr. Fletcher: No. What I am trying to say is that where there is a discrimination, as in the United States, we should adopt a similar attitude. If that means what the Minister has just said, I agree with him that we would be applying the same attitude towards American flag-carriers in the North Sea as the Americans would apply to British flag-carriers on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr. John Smith: Would that discrimination apply simply to American vessels or to all other foreign vessels in the North Sea? Is the hon. Gentleman speaking as an individual, or does he carry some authority for the proposition?

Mr. Fletcher: I am speaking entirely as an individual with all the authority I can muster as an individual. I am using the American example as the most obvious one that applies in the North Sea. If any other country operates a similar type of discrimination, the Department of Energy and its brother Departments should examine the question. If the Minister is interested, as I am sure he is, I refer him to the article in the Sunday Times of 2nd February.
Sticking to these practical points and the problems that have to be overcome if we are to meet our target of self-sufficiency by 1980, I wonder whether the Department of Energy is satisfied with the housing programme in the North-East of Scotland, and whether it feels that the Scottish Office is pulling its full weight in providing houses for key workers and others involved in the oil industry and in trying to help the country to meet its targets. I hope that the Secretary of State will not shrug these important practical points aside simply as the responsibility of other Departments. By looking at some of these onshore problems and producing a broader strategy the Government might build up confidence in their ability to encourage industry to bring about self-sufficiency in oil by 1980.
I will say a word or two about conservation. Oil consumption has fallen considerably during the past year or so. It dropped by 10 per cent. last year and, according to current estimates, is likely to fall more during 1975. Perhaps consumption could be as low as between 80 million tons and 82 million tons during 1975. That is conservation, but it is conservation by price and by the downturn in the economic activity of the United Kingdom. I will confine my remarks about conservation to that aspect.
Whatever detailed conservation programmes and policies are in the pipeline or are likely to be introduced, I hope that they will not be over-bureaucratic and that they will not become a straitjacket for industrial and domestic consumers. I like to think that we can look forward


in the not-too-distant future to an upturn in the economy. If we saddle people with bureaucratic controls based on existing levels of consumption, it might not be so easy to cast these off when demand increases, as it may.
For a long time Ministers have been obsessed with the problems of extracting from the North Sea revenue in the form of taxation rather than oil, and they have been completely bogged down on their proposals for participation, which have yet to see the light of day in the House. As an Opposition, the main criticism we make is that the Government have failed to give top priority to the job of getting the oil ashore and flowing. That is why I have drawn to the attention of the House one or two practical matters attention to which would pay immediate dividends to the country in the form of balance of payments benefits.
A little less Socialist dogma and a lot more attention to British national interests would earn the Secretary of State not a deduction in his salary but a considerable increase, if he could prove to the House that his Department is working on a broad basis with a broad strategy, putting aside the dogma to which I have referred and working in the interests of the people of this country.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) suggested that chickens were coming home to roost. Given that the Government have not yet been in office for one year, it should be borne in mind that if chickens are coming home to roost now, the Government is not responsible for laying the eggs from which they come. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the ships in the North Sea which bore American and other flags. The charters for those vessels were probably signed when the previous Conservative Government were in office. The hon. Gentleman said that Norway had lowered its "take" from offshore revenue. Even at the lower level, the Norwegians will be taking a much higher level of benefit for their country than that which would have been found acceptable by the Conservative administration.
The debate has been a surprising one. I expected more heat to be generated

in a censure debate on this most important subject. Perhaps if we had been suffering from a few weeks of snowy weather that would have been so. The lack of enthusiasm for this censure debate on an important subject is astonishing.
In many ways it is an improvement to have a thoughtful rather than a heated debate. There has been a transformation. A year or so ago we should have had a swashbuckling speech from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) advocating the denationalisation of the pits. Instead, we had a thoughtful contribution on insulation. What the hon. Gentleman said about encouraging insulation is important, but it would be foolish for the Government to seek to change rating arrangements while the Layfield Committee is sitting, particularly as the hon. Gentleman supports the careful examination of a system that at least needs adjustment. I welcome that thoughtfulness.
There has been a temptation for hon. Members to engage in the sort of superficial consideration which was evidenced by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who suggested that there was a lot of fossil fuel in the world which we should use massively to avoid the risk of a nuclear holocaust. That is a remarkably shortsighted view. If the world were to embark on massive use of fossil fuels without undertaking adequate research and development for nuclear power stations, we should be doing future generations a terrible disservice. We have to build up adequate technology to ensure that the future shall not be an era of barren waste and lack of opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a need for massive increases in opencast mining. That, too, could be a dangerous proposition. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) have suffered severely from opencast mining. It is right that the current safeguards of planning permission and proper consultation should continue. It would be extremely disadvantageous for areas such as ours if opencast mining were to be encouraged on too large a scale.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that street lighting should be curtailed. Experience in 1973 suggests that the


serious risk of increased road casualties has to be considered, and the Government are right to be cautious.
There is a great deal of merit in the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for the expansion of nuclear capacity. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is creating the climate and establishing foundations which will allow sensible nuclear capacity to be developed. If it is to be developed on a proper scale we need to go steadily forward on the steam generating heavy water reactor course. It would be highly dangerous and lead to the risk of duplicating previous errors if we allowed that development to proceed on too large a scale. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall place orders for at least two more steam generating heavy water reactors within a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham also spoke of guarantees for the mining industry. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) reminded him that he had suggested in the recent energy debate that there should be a price floor to underpin the coal industry in the long term. That would provide the necessary guarantee. As my right hon. Friend suggested, that would be welcome.
Two or three years ago I suggested that at least the central coalfield areas of Britain should be able to offer miners employment guarantees in order to restore confidence. That would be useful but would have only a marginal effect. The real benefit lies in the sort of policies which my right hon. Friend has pursued since the General Election. We are not giving miners bits of paper to say that there will be jobs for them in 20 years' time. We are offering, by the capital investment which is being put into the long-life pits such as Thurcroft, Dinnington, Kiveton Park and Maltby, the guarantee that they will continue to be producing the coal that Britain needs.
We shall get that coal only if we are prepared to pay the miners. Their pay has to be looked at in the long term against the background of growing confidence in the industry. Once the miners realise that the Government intend to continue the splendid work they have done in re-establishing confidence and

promoting once again the sensible and moderate relationships which existed in the pits before the last Conservative administration exercised its disturbing and disruptive effect, they will realise that there is a future for them.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) suggested that we should not embark on an expansion of coal production but that we should turn away from coal and massively increase our development of nuclear generation. I said in the debate a fortnight ago that if Europe is serious in demanding that we have £85 billion of nuclear development at 1973 prices, we must question now the implications of such a policy for public expenditure. I believe that we must increase our nuclear capacity, but I do not know whether the country can afford to increase it on the scale the hon. Member for Dorset, South was suggesting. Nuclear power stations are very expensive to provide and they must be provided, but it is questionable whether we could provide them on the scale that the hon. Member wants.
It seems therefore that we have to maintain a strong coal industry. The hon. Member seems to think that the coal industry is as it was when he was a young man, in the days when my father was a collier. He spoke about the need to encourage technological inventiveness. But there have been massive amounts of that in the coal industry since it was nationalised. The pits in my constituency are very different from the pits they were 20 or 30 years ago and the National Coal Board is to be congratulated not merely on producing coal but on leading the technological field in many ways. The hon. Member for Dorset, South is right to encourage an increased use of nuclear power, but it would be foolish to do that by turning away completely from coal.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): My hon. Friend is advancing an interesting argument. He is correct in saying that the coal industry enjoys modern technology. I have traversed the coal fields from Wales to Kent, Nottingham, Yorkshire and Durham and I have met the miners. I can assure my hon. Friend that they have confidence in their industry and that it is a modern technologicial industry.

Mr. Hardy: It certainly is, and I hope that that point will be appreciated in my constituency. I may not be popular for saying this, because old attitudes die hard, but attitudes must change. When I was a young man my father would have been horrified if I had expressed any desire to go into the pits. My experience of teaching in South Yorkshire was that parents often preferred their sons to take dead-end jobs rather than to go down the pits, such was their historical detestation of the industry.
Today, however, the Coal Board in South Yorkshire can offer young men an attractive career with every possible prospect for the development of their education and skills. It could be that this ever-developing technology in the mining industry will provide the career structure which will eventually lead parents to change their minds and which will justify careers masters in South Yorkshire in persuading parents to allow their sons to go to the pits, a decision which would not have been tolerated 20 or 30 years ago. If we are to maintain coal production in Britain such shifts of attitude will have to be made.
Nuclear power will have to be developed, and if it is, I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) and Newton (Mr. Evans). My hon. Friend the Member for Newton made some very strong comments, but, given past history, I think that they were entirely justified. I hope that when the Under-Secretary winds up the debate he will not merely comment on the passionate advocacy of the constituency case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton but will also deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for White-haven, who has a considerable expertise in these matters.
I have not yet had an answer to a point which I have raised in the past about the EEC proposition that nuclear power station policy should be based increasingly on standardisation. If the EEC embarks upon that policy, it seems inevitable that standardisation will be based upon American nuclear technology. That would be doing Britain and Europe a disservice. I hope that the Department

of Energy and any other Government Department involved will present a case for the maintenance of an adequate level of British nuclear technology and an adequate presence for that technology in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised the question of the policy of future oil-fired power stations. Is this based on the fact that North Sea oil is of a very high grade and should not be used for base purposes so that lower grade oil will be imported for power station generation? Some hon. Members have advanced the argument that we should export a good deal of our own high quality oil and import, at loss cost and to the nation's profit, the lower grade oil required for power stations. If we are proposing to build power stations to consume high-grade North Sea oil, future generations might look back on our action as being unwise.
Finally, I believe that the tripartite discussions which my right hon. Friend embarked upon with the National Coal Board and the trade unions served an extremely useful purpose. It might be a good idea if once a quarter that tripartite gathering were reconvened in order that there could be an examination of progress made in the previous quarter. Such a meeting repeated at regular intervals, could exercise the same beneficial effects within the mining communities as it has exercised since the Government took office.
If the Conservatives wish to complain about energy development they should look a little further back than the period which has elapsed since 4th March. The mistakes which were made between June 1970 and the end of 1973 were some of the most severe in British history. It is taking a great deal of time and perhaps a great deal of ingenuity but the Government is re-establishing common sense in energy matters.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I followed with great interest the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). I was interested in the three questions he put to the Minister, and I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping for replies to them later.
When the hon. Gentleman alluded to the responsibility of the Conservative


administration for the deficiencies to which he referred, I thought that he strayed from reality.
I associate myself with the Opposition motion, though I do so in a formal sense. I have a feeling of solidarity with the Secretary of State, knowing that at any moment in time it is virtually impossible to evolve an adequate and all-embracing energy policy covering all our domestic needs which will hold water for more than six months. As soon as we try to set out in a cohesive way a total energy policy, it is almost automatically upset by an external and unpremeditated event. Therefore, my association with the motion is formal, for reasons which I hope to develop.
The single greatest jolt that the world economy has experienced during this century occurred during the last months of 1973, with regard to energy. The world economy has had to put up with a good deal, but it has never before experienced in one fatal major movement such an impact on oil prices. It threw suddenly into a state of upheaval a situation to which people had become accustomed, whereby energy was always available and always cheap. People suddenly found that energy was neither always available nor always cheap. That vitally changed not only the energy economy but the economy of the world. It is difficult to see any advantages which may have arisen from that troublesome period, but there may be some.
As a result of the situation, there have been some major reappraisals of the totality of economic and energy policies in practically every country of the world, each of which has had to reassess its position and consider how best to face the future. That is as true of those which became suddenly rich as those which became suddenly poor. In so far as it affects countries such as ours, that new thinking has opened up new areas of thought. We think anew about future sources of energy. We think anew about the true importance of the hydrocarbon sources. We see the problem in a new light because it suddenly adopts a new value. We see anew the balance of world resources as it affects the developing countries, because we suddenly witness a state of affairs in the underdeveloped countries, in a different degree, as serious as that from which we suffer. We see

anew our future requirements for primary resources other than energy. We find ourselves considering very seriously the rate of exhaustion of primary resources, world-wide, and we think of new methods of dealing with them.
The events at the end of 1973 fundamentally changed our attitude of mind and gave rise to a burst of thought and new ideas. That was their great advantage. These were the necessary consequences of what happened. The underlying factor which has emerged is that economies in the use of energy are a world-wide consideration. It is no longer a national consideration; it is an international consideration. That was always true of the oil industry.
Until recently we had become accustomed to the thought that the coal industry was an industry with which we were concerned from a domestic point of view. We even considered the nuclear energy industry as a domestic enclave with which we were dealing in our own way and according to our own abilities. We did not consider that it was essentially framed within an international context. Suddenly, all those matters changed their appearance. As a result, because the world is inventive and because people have innovative thoughts, we see a burst of new ideas and suggestions. We see procedures devised for safeguarding against the disruption of oil supplies, for instance, with international measures taken to try to overcome the dangers inherent in such disruption. We see the question of economising on energy, which had hardly entered our minds in the past 50 or 100 years, suddenly becoming a world-wide consideration, with an international requirement to approach a problem in an international way.
We see allied problems—for instance, the upturn of the economic functions concerned with oil supply. Those also require international consideration. We see a vast accumulation of monetary resources flowing into the oil-producing areas of the world. We see a need to deal with that situation. We have new ideas and see international initiatives taken to try to change the pattern of that movement.
The stimulation of alternative sources of energy creates a new flavour in our


minds, and it brings in its train the inevitable consideration of how the pricing system affecting energy can support the development of such new sources. We see the international energy agency taking steps in this direction, especially those concerning safeguards against market disruption and the propagation of more effective international economies of energy use. There is a tendency to imagine that because this is a prestigious organisation, embracing many of the major countries concerned with the problems, it is the only institution necessary to deal with the international characteristic of energy problems. However, that is incorrect. There is a real need for an active energy policy within the framework of the EEC.
We had the opportunity of debating this matter the other day, and it is not my intention now to rehearse the issues concerned in that debate. But I stress that the need to develop an effective energy policy within the framework of the Community does not duplicate or neutralise the activities of the international energy agency. On the contrary, the need is for the Community's policy not to conflict. It must fit in. But there is already an advantage, in that to the extent that nine countries—or eight plus one at the present time—can speak as one within the framework of the international energy agency, they will be more likely to secure the common purposes which they see as being necessary to meet their peculiar problems.
For the United Kingdom, I consider the biggest single problem to be trying to find means of developing our own resources. The hon. Member for Rother Valley spoke of the enormous cost of installations for the generation of electricity from nuclear power. The very development of the systems and the methods in themselves are so costly that it is impossible to imagine that we can at the same time handle the vast expenditure involved in developing oil resources in the North Sea and perhaps other coastal waters, that we can do an equivalent task in gas production, that we can make an effort in added coal production and that we can at the same time develop and put in place not just one system of nuclear generation but stay in the hunt with a multitude of systems

—not just the steam-generated heavy-water systems but also to keep our hands in on high-temperature reactors and the fast breeder as it comes along. Together, they place such a weight on resource demand that we cannot reasonably expect to do it alone.
Here, the force of the Community plays an immense part. Anyone who imagines that that kind of task can be undertaken by such a widespread organisation as the international energy agency is suffering from a certain delusion. That organisation can control; it can contribute to order; perhaps it can promote economy. But it cannot constitute a plan for the reformulation of a whole continent's energy needs and put in place the required developments and installations to ensure that they are met. That is the kind of operation that a Community energy policy can do.
The degree to which I consent to the motion put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends resides in my resentment of the Government's failure actively to pursue a Community energy policy. I sense that the Government are being lackadaisical about this, which is totally at variance with the requirements of the problem.
I associate myself in some measure with criticism of the Secretary of State's action because I believe that he has proved less than dynamic in pushing forward an essential programme on our future energy needs within the framework of a Community energy policy.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I listened intently to the right lion. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He spoke about the difficulty of planning the energy needs of this country and was taking it for granted that there would be rigid planning. I hope that that will never happen because time and again Governments have tried to estimate the energy requirements of the nation, taking into account the various views and they have always made a grave mistake because requirements change. The right hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in November 1973. The mining group in the Labour Party has continually warned Government after Government of the dangers of relying too heavily on oil.
I agree that we did not expect a rapid upsurge in the price. We thought that some other method would be adopted. The outcome has been the same. The impact of changes in the supply of oil on the Western world has been great. We are still suffering from inflation to which we cannot see an end. Worst hit are the developing nations which have no oil. They have suffered far more than ourselves. Not only is there malnutrition in those countries but people are dying from it. There is a great deal of wealth in the world and it is tragic that we should allow this sort of thing to happen.
A Government are foolish unless they plan their energy needs taking into account all the resources that can be utilised. There are 2,000 million tons of coal in this country which will last us for two centuries or more. It has been wasted away. We have ignored it completely. Coal has to be mined and here manpower is important. It is difficult to compete with oil. If we do not cut down our energy needs, we shall not be fair and just to those who follow us. Coal ought to have greater expectations.
I hope that the Government will continue their present policy, with one important exception. The coal-mining industry will always have to compete with other energy sources which are not extractive in nature. The coal industry must be helped and planned. We must make certain that there is sufficient manpower in the mining industry. At present the inflow of manpower consists of men who left the industry and who have decided to return because wages have been improved. There is always the great danger that they will move out again if we do not maintain good standards. We want an inflow of young people. Therefore, my right hon. Friend and the Government should consider how to attract them into the industry.
I suggest that we should take note of what happens in Communist countries where men are paid a sum of money after being in the industry for a certain time. I am throwing this suggestion into the pool without any definite conviction. However, when a young man who comes into the mining industry at 16 or 18 years of age reaches, say, 28 years of age, I suggest that he should be paid a sum of money, perhaps to help him to start a

home, and 20 years later another sum of money to encourage him to stay in the industry. Coal will be vital to our needs for at least the next two generations. Therefore, I hope that something on those lines will be considered.
Training and education are important. We should train people so that, if they have serious accidents or find their health impaired, they can go out of the industry into specialised jobs. That is an important consideration. We do not seem to attach sufficient importance to the education and training of our work force.
I turn to consider natural gas. There is a grave danger, because it is there, to use it too rapidly. Some people talk of gas-fired power stations. It would be an injustice to future generations not to ensure the conservation of natural gas sources. It is used in great quantities, but we know that its sources are far more limited than are coal supplies.
I turn to North Sea oil. Oil is important apart from its use for combustion in power stations and for heating. What will happen to the petrol engine if we simply run out of oil? There is no other motive power yet to take its place. Eventually we shall no doubt have an electrically-powered motor generator, but the moving parts will still need oil. I hope that within the next 10 years the Government will ensure that we get as much oil as possible from the North Sea to cushion the effect of what is happening in the Middle East. We can then consider whether, in view of the progressive rate at which oil will be required, we need to take so much and how to make it last as long as possible. The Middle East oil-producing countries are using their resources as a kind of bank. They know that once their supplies have been dissipated their wealth will disappear.
I turn to nuclear power. Undoubtedly it is the future source of energy that we shall require. But I believe that we are moving too quickly in that direction. We are not giving enough thought to what can happen in future. I understand that nuclear waste can be dangerous for about 20,000 years. If we do not make certain that nuclear waste does not pollute our seas and land we shall pass on to future generations something that will have a


great effect upon them. I hope that we shall treat the matter thoughtfully to ensure that that does not happen. I do not think that enough research is being done on how to nullify the effects of nuclear waste.
It is always said that nuclear power will be a source of energy for many centuries to come and will safeguard the needs of mankind until we find some other source. I want to make certain that the Government realise that within our shores we have supplies of oil, gas and coal, together with a nuclear energy industry. Coal is found in the greatest abundance, but it is the most difficult to bring to the surface to be used by man. I do not say this with any bias because I happen to be an ex-miner. Coal will be with us for many years to meet our needs, but we cannot get it unless we have the necessary manpower. For goodness sake let us consider the problem and make certain that men go down the mines to produce sufficient coal to help other sources of energy so that our needs are met to the full.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If this is an example of the new-style Conservative Party censure motion, I shudder to think what will happen when we get to our normal, quiet, peaceful and thoughtful debates. It would appear that this is a filler-in and it is apparent that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is not here to watch over the hatchlings in her new brood.

Mr. Hamish Gray: The hon. Gentleman's bench is empty.

Mr. Wilson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) on his appointment. I hope he hold it for longer than his predecessor did.
We are debating a censure motion to deduct £1,000 from the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy, yet to judge from the amount of fire that has been displayed in the debate one would think that what was at stake was £5.
So far we have had a small Scottish dimension, but I am glad to note that the concluding speeches will be by Scottish Members in both the Government and Opposition teams.
Despite the rude remarks of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I am not sure whether Opposition Whips lose any money on giving up their position as Whips. I know they must lose a lot of power and influence, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his elevation to his new job.
In Scotland we are very fortunate in the many forms of energy that are open to us. We are rich in oil and gas. We are relatively well off in coal, though not so well off as are some other parts of the United Kingdom. Hydro-electric power gives us a useful advantage in the north of Scotland, where it provides 30 per cent. of our needs. In addition, Scotland has a fairly substantial share of nuclear generation.
When policies which are applicable to the United Kingdom are applied to Scotland, this is not necessarily to our advantage, because we have a different make-up in our energy composition and such policies may give rise to odd results. One can talk about the need for energy conservation, but one effect of it is a deliberate increase in petrol charges. For a country which has many remote rural areas this can be a disadvantage, and a policy which should not be adopted, considering that within a very short period Scotland will become an oil-exporting country.
In this debate those of us who do not belong to the major parties are given the choice of deciding whether or not the Secretary of State for Energy should be penalised to quite a considerable extent in his salary through his failure to discharge his duties, on the initiative of an Opposition who themselves, when in office, unfortunately gave many opportunities for criticism over the development—or non-development—of their own energy policy. From the Conservative Party, which has not yet achieved the anniversary of its decline of office, reluctantly at the time, there remains the legacy it left behind, particularly in relation to oil matters; for example, the tax delays and the fumbling over that issue until they were prodded by the report of the Select Committee into closing one of the loop-holes. They did not even get around to framing more positive forms of taxation,


although shortly after the election they claimed that they had had a taxation policy in the pigeonhole, ready to take out.
On tenders, there was a very successful scheme under which auctions of a number of licences brought in useful sums, but in the fourth round they proceeded on the basis of allocating licences without considering the benefits of the auction system. On participation, for which most oil-producing countries have gone on a very substantial scale, the Government of the day deliberately played shy, and although in Oslo, as we have heard, the Opposition flirted with the idea temporarily, they did not, when in office, do anything to secure any governmental share in the oil and natural gas industry except through the casual intervention in the market of the National Coal Board.
They allowed business opportunities to pass them by. For instance, the very speed of development placed difficulties in the way of Scotland's industry in terms of picking up some of the new business opportunities that existed. There was a willingness to override the quasi-judicial inquiry at Drambuie. This is what we have to choose from on this side.
One could say that the proposed reduction of £1,000 could more properly be attributed to the salary of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), but he enjoys only an MP's salary, and it would be unfair to deal with him in that way. But his own party have quite a legacy, which it cannot shrug off, and its attempt to do so in this debate is premature.

Mr. John Davies: As the hon. Gentleman is constantly telling us that this oil is Scottish, will he give credit to the then Government for having devised the licence method by which the oil was found and is now being developed?

Mr. G. Wilson: No. I do not give that credit to the hon. Gentleman. I would criticise the licensing arrangements which were evolved by successive British Governments, and certainly it was an earlier Labour Government which set in motion some licensing arrangements. Probably they would now have severe criticisms to make of their own plans in the 1960s. If one looks at the example of Norway, which was quoted earlier, one

finds that that country started working on licences in about 1965, and certainly in the earlier stages they were far bettter prepared than was the United Kingdom. The Opposition—thankfully, say many—are no longer in office.
As for the present Government, what can we choose from them? [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing."] Perhaps that is a fair statement, because they, too, have faults, as many of us would wish to suggest. We can look at the delay in presenting their taxation proposals and particularly at the rate of PRT, which was announced only today, at the uncertainty which this has caused, and at the doubts sown by one of the Government's Ministers over the terms on which participation may be obtained. Indeed, their policies in relation to participation are still veiled. We shall have to wait until the Petroleum Bill is published to find out what benefit they think the State can get from it. I am a protagonist of participation, but the Government are remarkably quiet in outlining the benefits they think can come from it.
Some inquiry into the Offshore Supplies Office was made recently, through the medium of Parliamentary Questions. One small piece of information which emerged was that the audit engineers, whose job it is to find opportunities for British industry, are located mainly in London, while the monitoring engineers, who have a secondary function, are located in the Offshore Supplies Office, in Scotland. A recent parliamentary answer to a Question of mine showed that 33 supply ships had been produced in England and only five in Scotland. That is a sign that in many ways Scotland has not benefited from the policies of this Government or the previous one.
What sort of terrors do the Government now have in store for us? One recent suggestion is that of oil swaps with Iran and Venezuela. My party is opposed to any exchange of oil with those countries without any particular advantages for Scotland being spelled out by the Government. The Scottish Daily Express today said:
The Government is planning a series of barter deals to secure supplies of Middle East oil now in return for British oil later. These would greatly reduce the balance of payments deficit. The Shah of Persia and other suppliers are interested in such deals as a means of conserving their own oil reserves in the future.


It is significant that many people in Scotland would like our oil reserves conserved much more productively and positively.

Mr. John Smith: How can they be conserved productively?

Mr. Wilson: I did say "positively".
Reference has been made to the share of taxation which the United Kingdom hopes to get from North Sea oil. An article appeared in the Economist on 15th February rather attractively titled "Sharing the North Sea gravy". The article suggested some criticism of the Government, who, it said, had shown an astounding modesty over the propaganda campaigns which the oil companies have been waging over the last few weeks and months—successfully, judging by the Paymaster-General's statement today
The Economist took the view that the Government had conceded the case of the oil companies without doing much to contest it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I, too, saw that article and took the trouble to analyse some of its figures. I would only advise the hon. Gentleman not to put too much faith in it, because its figures were highly suspect.

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps they are highly suspect from the point of view of the oil companies. It is their viewpoint that the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing in Committee on the Oil Taxation Bill. But I take his point. If he will send me his analysis, of course I shall study it, but it is significant that these reports have been appearing. In recent weeks, the climate of opinion has been changing as the Press has studied some of the statements by the oil companies.
Our problem in Scotland is that oil off our shores is being used for purposes and on a scale of which we do not approve. We make it clear now to the Government and the Opposition that we would adopt an entirely different energy strategy in Scotland over development of our own resources and reserves. But in this debate we are being asked, in a sense, to join in the pot calling the kettle black. It is quite clear that there is room for criticism, and fault on both sides. If the Government are considering any such oil

swap, as has been indicated, I ask them to take that proposal back to the drafting board, because I assure the Minister that it would meet with considerable resistance in Scotland.
However, because this is an internal battle about British energy policy, which is quite irrelevant to the Scottish situation, it is my intention to advise my hon. Friends that they should give their support neither to the Government nor to the Opposition, but should abstain.

9.5 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I shall address my remarks principally to the question of oil within the energy debate. The House will know of my interest in this matter. Before doing so, however, I should like to touch on two very important matters which have been raised, and to press the Government about them.
The first is the question of the inversion of tariffs for electricity and gas. As a method of encouraging fuel saving and as a method of preventing a very heavy burden from falling upon members of the public least able to bear it, an inversion of tariffs would be a very suitable weapon in the hands of the Government.
I should like also to draw the Minister's attention to the problems of pneumoconiosis suffers who did not work for the National Coal Board. The new measure proposed—the £30 million which is being made available by the NCB—for pneumoconiosis sufferers in lieu of claims that they might make against the board is, I understand, to be extended in some cases to coalminers who worked in the private sector. In my constituency there were a large number of small private mines which continued long after the NCB took over most of the mines in this country. Because of this, there are many ex-miners who suffer from pneumoconiosis and who would have had a claim against companies which are in many cases long since defunct. I have written to the Minister on this subject, but it would be helpful if the Government could make clear what exactly are the rights of miners from the private industry, the old private mines, with respect to compensation claims.
I turn my attention to the statement which we heard earlier today. It would be churlish not at least to congratulate


the Paymaster-General upon his statement. Hon. Members will be aware that I was not exactly enamoured of the form of the Bill when it first appeared. It struck me as a cumbersome and complex piece of legislation. What we had today was, perhaps, a cumbersome and complex solution to the problem—but I am bound to say that it is a solution. In this respect, the sour grapes of the Opposition spokesman are very much misplaced.
I should like to take up a little time in explaining why I think that it is a sensible solution, because I do not believe that the form of this solution has been fully understood, perhaps, by some of my hon. Friends. The problem of marginal fields is one that the country must face for its own purposes and not merely for those of the oil companies. The amount of oil which is likely to be produced in the North Sea from fields of 300 million barrels recoverable reserves and less will possibly rise to as much as 50 per cent. of the total recoverable oil. Many of these fields are very marginal indeed, but as far as this country is concerned they are vital. For us to get half of our oil from such fields it is essential that they are produced.
This is a decision which the nation will take. The nation will decide that the oil will be produced. If it means that in some cases there will be almost no tax advantage to the country, this may be a decision that, in the best interest of our balance of payments and other matters, the Government ought to take.
The announcement that was made today allows of that possibility. At the same time it ensures that the major fields, such as Forties and Brent, will bear considerable taxation. The total tax take will not be 45 per cent. The tax take of some of the smaller marginal fields may be zero. The average tax take, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, is likely to be 70 per cent. of all revenue from oil from all the fields.
I cannot pretend to have worked out the matter precisely, but from taking a thumbnail sketch of the figures for some of the larger fields it seems that for fields of the size of Brent or of Forties would involve a total tax take of as much as 80 per cent. or 81 per cent.
That compares favourably with any take which any country in the world is currently levying upon production within its borders. We are looking not at a fixed 70 per cent. but at a situation in which, if it were in the interests of the country to exploit a field, it could be exploited. If the field were a particularly good one, the total Government take could be as high as 80 per cent.
I believe that in practice we should welcome the Bill. It may prove rather difficult to administer, but at least as a basic structure it is what we require. Having welcomed it, I am bound to make one or two comments on aspects which I should like the Government to continue to consider. First, I turn to the sub-marginal fields which it may be in the national interest to exploit. I should like the Government to consider, particularly through the media of the British National Oil Company, whether it should not have some discretionary powers for purchasing marginal fields if it seemed to be in the national interest to do so, irrespective of the economics in a normal commercial term.
I also believe that we should give further consideration to the problems faced by some of the smaller, independent and non-integrated British companies. The House will know of my special interest in this area. In particular I refer to the problems which are raised by the existence of the ring fence. If an independent British company engaged mainly in exploration wishes to make exploration outside the United Kingdom, it can have no recourse to its own funds generated inside the United Kingdom from discoveries that it might make within the ring fence. If we wish an independent British oil industry to prosper, the Government should look at special methods that could be applied to small independent British companies in that situation.
There is also the difficulty of the expensing of the overriding royalties. One of the problems for many of the smaller companies is that if their borrowing is of a non-recourse kind they are often not able to provide the kind of guarantees from their other assets that the banks are demanding—that is, if the banks are to lend them money. Many of the banks are asking for overriding royalties as a form of equity participation in the loans


that they are making. If they cannot be expensed, many of the smaller companies will be in a position in which they will have great difficulty in borrowing any kind of funds for oil field development. I hope that the Government, even within what I believe to be a sound Bill as we now have it, will once again reconsider the points that I have mentioned.
My last point is on participation. That is currently under negotiation. In essence, being stuck with the figure of 51 per cent. is unfortunate. I hope that the British National Oil Company will be vested with all future licences and that companies seeking those licences in participation with the BNOC will seek them and bid for them in terms of participation. We might then have the circumstances in which a large structure in a block could attract a bid in terms of a participation agreement in excess of 51 per cent. It might even attract 70 per cent. A marginal block might attract only 20 per cent.
The advantage of BNOC is that it would have a larger share of the bigger possibilities and a smaller share of the smaller possibilities. This would be a clear advantage, with the greater reward that it would take in the larger prospects being set against the greater risk it might take on some of the more marginal prospects.
If we believe this, the corollary is to say that in the existing fields we should have much higher percentages of the very large fields and much smaller percentages of the smaller fields. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a manifesto which says that we must go for 51 per cent. in all cases. I hope that the Government, in going for their 51 per cent., will not take the view that if they take over, for example, the National Coal Board interests, they will then count the National Coal Board's percentage as part of their 51 per cent., because that would mean that companies that had been sufficiently fortunate to be associated with nationalised industries would be in the position of not having to give up anything like as great an interest as would companies which were not associated with nationalised industries. This would be extremely unfair.
I believe also that if we take over Burmah's interest—I do not know

whether we are going to do so—and if that is included as part of the 51 per cent., companies which are in partnership with Burmah will naturally be better off than companies which are not. I recommend that in our discussions on the question of 51 per cent. participation we seek to take the interest across the board. If we say that we will take 30 per cent. of one interest but will make that up by taking 70 per cent. of somebody else's interest, this is liable to be very unfair to the companies from which a large share is taken.
Finally, I believe that we should be much better off taking our interest in existing discoveries if we took it in terms of oil, instead of paying large sums of cash. If we were to say to the oil companies, "We will take our 51 per cent. and we will pay for it out of the production that will belong to us", that would save us money and it would allow the oil companies to have the oil.
I will merely say this about that very interesting idea, to which my right hon. is nodding assent: if the companies involved are integrated, that is fine, but if they are non-integrated companies, as are many of the smaller British companies, it could be very difficult because they all have very complex exploration and operation agreements. If we are to use some form of preferential buy-back arrangements with the companies to obtain our 51 per cent., the position of small independent companies which are non-integrated should be looked at carefully so that they do not suffer in a deal which is largely with the majors.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: In addition to saying that this has been a long-awaited debate, I can also say that I have had to wait a very long wait to take part in it. As I have only two minutes in which to make my speech, I wonder whether it is worth while.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), who is an expert on the oil industry, referred to the solution announced today by the Paymaster-General as a mixed up kind of solution to the problem of the tax. It will also prove to be a very sticky solution for the oil industry.
The Oil Taxation Bill has been a complete shambles from beginning to end.


I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Unfortunately, the hon. Member was not able to serve on that Standing Committee. The Bill was started half-way through at Clause 9. The Committee was then invited to proceed to deal with the Bill from the beginning. We now await a Report stage which will probably last several days. The Bill should be recommitted once it has been reported to the House.
I am absolutely convinced that the small SGHWR programme upon which we have embarked will prove to be totally inadequate. I therefore hope that the Government will consider embarking upon a greatly expanded programme. I believe that by 1980 a decision will have been made to go in for a mixed programme of nuclear development using the SGHWR and the PWR. I believe that the future of this country will depend on our producing cheaper nuclear power and in generating that power rather than the more expensive indigenous fuel power generation into which we shall be led without the development of nuclear stations.
If it had not been for the pressure of time, I would have dealt with the important question of conservation. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), in an excellent speech, outlined many proposals on this topic and others which I hope the Minister will carefully consider. However, I stress the need for us to concentrate on the savings which can he achieved in the industrial sector. If the full research and development programme can be carried out and many ideas put forward by British inventors can be given governmental assistance in saving industrial costs, I am certain that we shall achieve the reductions that we need. At this stage, one year after the Government took office, I believe that we should censure them for inadequate answers to the problems which face us.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I wish to acknowledge one speech in this debate which went very much wider than many other speeches. I refer to the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He brought to the debate a completely new

dimension, an international dimension which was very important in our considerations. Many of the speeches today have dealt with the narrow and parochial matters which affect this country, whereas we all know that activities of the oil industry know no boundaries. I believe that unless we approach this matter on an international as well as on a national basis, our chance of reaching a solution to many of our problems will be much diminished.
I recommend this view to the Scottish National Party. I believe that unless we take account of the international dimensions of oil in the North Sea we shall ignore one of the major factors in the industry.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I thank the Minister for mentioning my party in his earlier remarks—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am not a Minister. We are not yet the Government.

Mrs. Ewing: I meant to refer to the hon. Gentleman as the shadow minister. At any rate, may I take it from what he said that we are very high on his list of priorities? I should like to ask him an important question. If the interests of his country were in conflict with those of a wider international character in regard to energy matters, on whose side would he be?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for coming out from under her thistledown. I thought that my remark might have that effect. I assure her that I shall deal with the detailed aspects of the SNP's policy in a moment, if I have time. I assure her, as I am sure she already knows, that I put the interests of Scotland first and foremost in my mind but, unlike the hon. Lady, I believe in Scotland playing a national rôle in the United Kingdom as well as an international rôle amid the wider family of nations.

Mrs. Ewing: But not in the United Nations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What disappointed me in the Secretary of State's speech was his air of unreality and, indeed, of complacency on the very important matters which affect the energy requirements of this country.
I should like to deal with three aspects of the subject of energy. I hope that in the Minister's reply we shall see more concern for the real fundamentals of the problem which faces us. I refer first to the conservation of energy. I should first like to say a word to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), who suggested that we could save the use of private cars by using more public transport. Surely what we must do in many areas is to provide public transport. My constituents would throw up their arms in horror if they were to hear the hon. Member's suggestion, and I would not blame them.

Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right about public transport in rural areas but the Conservative Government persistently cut the subsidies for public transport in those areas.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not true, because we gave a considerable amount of help in that respect. I still believe that a great deal more could be done in respect of rural transport, and I hope that steps are taken on the lines of those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King).
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be more forthcoming and more positive about effective measures for conservation, on the lines mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and Exeter (Mr. Hannam). If the Secretary of State is now to take credit for the efforts he is making to conserve energy, can he explain why no action was taken between his announcement of the 13th March, when he ended the previous Government's measures to conserve energy, and the statement of 9th November? We went through a period when measures could have been taken to conserve energy but the right hon. Gentleman's Government did nothing. They took away existing measures to conserve energy just after they came into office.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) spoke about the coal industry. The Secretary of State ignored two important matters in relation to that industry. He was conveniently blind towards the effects of the miners' settlement on the social contract. In an energy debate, to ignore the wider

implications and the effects on the economy as a whole is to ignore an important factor.
The Secretary of State is particularly short sighted in regard to the effects of the recent settlement in the mining industry on the competiveness of the coal industry in relation to other forms of energy. I am sure that the Secretary of State will justify what has happened in the coal industry. Indeed, he has sought to do so. But what the Secretary of State has ignored is the longer-term effect on the overall energy picture and the balance between the different forms of energy. The coal industry has moved rapidly from a good competitive position to one where it is back in the old position of bumping up against the other industries, with much less room to manoeuvre in the future. This could be serious for the future of the coal industry.
The third source of energy is nuclear power. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said in opening the debate. Is the programme being pushed ahead with the urgency that it demands? After visiting Toronto, Frank Frazer, the energy correspondent of the Scotsman, wrote on 11th February:
There is, however, a decided sense of frustration among some of the people in the Canadian nuclear industry to whom I have spoken in the last few days about the apparent lack of momentum in the British plans.
What my right hon. Friend said is not something hatched up by the Opposition, but is felt much wider.
The Under-Secretary knows that nuclear energy is of particular importance to Scotland, because of the interest of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and its Chairman, Mr. Tombs, and because of the proposed power station for Torness. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can deny suggestions that the Scottish plans have been held up because of the lack of urgency over general plans for the United Kingdom. I ask the hon. Gentleman for an assurance that the proposals of the SSEB have been pushed forward with the urgency which the situation demands.
The oil industry has occupied most time in the debate. The Government must realise the degree of uncertainty they have created throughout the oil industry in recent months by their lack of


decision over taxation and other matters. Anyone who is in touch with the industry knows of this uncertainty. Mr. Young, the general manager of the Bank of Scotland in the Oil Register published in the Scotsman of 28th January says this:
A major impediment to the development of North Sea oil production is uncertainty about Government policy.
Mr. James Milne, the assistant secretary of the Scottish Trade Union Congress, at a conference on employment in the yards which produce steel platforms, as reported in the Scotsman of 23rd January, identified one of the causes of the steel order position as the hiatus of North Sea development due to political and financial uncertainty.
Although the number of rigs in operation in the North Sea is greater than it was a year ago, the increase has not been as great as was expected. At the same time, the rigs which are operating are exploiting existing finds rather than pushing out the frontiers of exploration in other areas. I know that the Under-Secretary of State in Edinburgh at the weekend did his best to lay to rest uncertainty about platform orders, but The Press and Journal last Saturday again reported uncertainty about orders.
Perhaps the most significant uncertainty is that which is referred to in the report in the Scotsman today that the Offshore Supplies Office has commissioned a technical study of the Government-financed oil platform construction site at Portavadie, to assess alternative uses of that site. A few months ago the Government, rightly, tried to make sure that adequate production sites were available. Now that that production site is available, within a matter of months research has been commissioned to find an alternative use for it. That is another indication of the uncertainty that exists throughout the oil industry. If all this uncertainty is allowed to continue, great difficulties will be created in the future development of the industry.
Apart from the balance of payments position and the need to get oil on stream as quickly as we can, Scotland has the serious problem of getting the spin-off in jobs and in terms of a stake in the new technology.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have examined the causes of the uncertainty.

The most important of these is the question of taxation. We are grateful for the clarification given by the Paymaster-General in his statement. What the Government cannot duck and what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy sought to duck in his speech, is his and his right hon. Friend's responsibility for the uncertainty. That uncertainty has undoubtedly led to a slowdown in offshore development. A great deal of responsibility for this rests in the right hon. Gentleman's hands.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), speaking on behalf of the Scottish National Party, made an ambivalent speech. Members of the SNP take to themselves a superior knowledge in oil matters. The hon. Gentleman showed total ambivalence in his speech, endorsing neither one policy nor another and being unclear as to the precise nature of his own party's policy. But of course, we know what is the policy of his party. It was the same policy that the Government embarked upon at the start of their consultations on the oil taxation proposals. It was quite simply to ensure, by taking a high level of money from the oil companies, that oil exploration was quite uneconomic. That in its turn would have slowed down development in Scotland.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will not give way again to the hon. Member. I remind her of a leader article which appeared in The Press and Journal which, for those who are not familiar with it, is the largest circulation daily newspaper in the North-East of Scotland, the area where these developments are taking place. That article said:
If the xenophobes this side of the Border would forget their Little Scotlander attitudes and tone down their megalomania, they might be in a better position to help obtain for the Scots their rightful share of oil wealth.
It concluded:
Greed and go-it-alone arrogance can only meet with a backlash.
That comment describes the policy of the Scottish National Party. Its members are trying in every way to have their cake and to eat it, too. If their policy was allowed to run its course, it would be disastrous for Scotland from the point of view of creating new jobs and speeding


development of our stake in oil technology for the future.
The Government need not think that they can get off the hook simply because they have clarified the question of oil taxation. There is still an enormous question mark hanging over the proposals for State participation. The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag today when he said that the Government were embarking upon their participation policy as a political commitment. State participation will do nothing to get more money for the people of this country than could have been obtained by normal taxation methods.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: My party has made its position perfectly clear in the past. We criticised the Conservatives in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee criticised them, and we have criticised the Government, too. Our policy is simply the slow development of the oil to let the infrastructure and the contracting work catch up. That is a perfectly simple exposition of our policy and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has totally misled the House.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady because it provided her with an opportunity to show how she and her party cannot make up their minds. She criticised both sides of the House, and that is typical of her Party because in different parts of Scotland the members of her party speak out of different sides of their faces. I imagine that if she could, the hon. Lady would go one half into one Lobby and one half into the other.
The Secretary of State for Energy must make it plain, as the Chancellor of the Duchy did last week, that participation will not mean one extra penny for the people of Britain. It is an act of political dogma. It is for that, as much as for anything else, that the Labour Party stands condemned tonight. The Government should be showing a great deal more urgency in supporting this great industry in Scotland. It is only when we get the houses, the roads, the sewerage and water schemes and the schools that we in Scotland will be sure that we are getting the development we need.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office, has made a great point about the £2½ million devoted through the rate support grant to helping areas where oil-related developments are taking place. Is that sum adequate for what is needed? For instance, the Government have just announced their school building programme. The local education authority in my constituency has been allocated £11,000 for 1976–77 for school buildings. If that is the degree of importance which the Government attach to it, that demonstrates the adequacy of the £2½ million.
The Government stand condemned for their oil policy more than for anything else, including the way in which the tax question has been handled, the consequent uncertainties, the continuing threat of nationalisation, which was justified solely on political grounds, and the lack of urgency in providing the supporting services in the oil development areas. That shows that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand industry, which he is supposed to serve. For that reason he deserves a cut in his salary.

9.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): Looking back on the debate, it is hard to imagine that it was supposed to be on a motion of censure upon my right hon. Friend. It has been pursued by the Opposition with a mixture of lethargy and indifference which makes one wonder how they happened to alight on the subject of energy for a Supply debate.
We started off with a typical contribution from the right hon. Member for Wanstead of Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). No doubt he spent most of last night assembling his newspaper cuttings in the dark. He spent most of his time reading them out, which I notice is a habit also adopted by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). It is a pity that the Conservative spokesmen cannot tell us what their thoughts are without repeating, parrot fashion, a series of newspaper cuttings of indifferent quality. The root of the matter is that the Opposition were too lazy even to frame a substantive motion today. They took refuge in the age-old device of attempting to cut the salary of my right hon. Friend. They did not set out clearly


and precisely in the motion their criticisms of Government policy. We have listened carefully today to hear the indictment.
Let us take some of the subjects in the order in which they arose. There was a great deal of talk about energy conservation from the Opposition. We have listened, each time there has been criticism of the Government's energy conservation programme, for realistic, practical and constructive suggestions, from the Opposition Front Bench. We have heard very few, although we heard some from Opposition back benchers.
I listened with care to the contribution of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). Some of his points are already being carried out. However, he made a helpful and constructive contribution to the debate. I wish that that applied to the Opposition Front Benchers, who were careful never to suggest anything that would land them with political unpopularity. We know that the Government have already announced a very wide programme and have faced up to political unpopularity as a result of their programme of realistic energy pricing. The Secretary of State set out at length the list of measures he has taken. He is continually advised by the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation, which is doing an excellent job in monitoring all the schemes that come forward.
The Government have made it clear that the energy conservation campaign cannot be conducted in a gimmick-laden, short-term atmosphere. It is a long-term job. The principal effort will have to be made in industry.
The Opposition should heed the advice of one of their back benchers, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who counselled them to be careful of bureaucratic interference with the working of industry in trying to save energy. There is a great deal of truth in what he said.
A number of hon. Members raised points of detail about energy policy. I hope that they will forgive me if, in the short time available, I am unable to deal with those points in detail.
A number of hon. Members showed their concern for the future of the nuclear power industry. I think that they know

of the decisions taken by the Government. I assure them that the Government are pursuing with determination the policy which they adopted.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns raised points concerning Scotland, and referred to the offshore supplies' industry. One of the most important aspect of the oil and gas developments on the Continental Shelf is the opportunity afforded to our industry to enter an important new market.
There has been much criticism about British industry for not breaking into this market earlier and with more determination. There is a great deal of force in some of the criticism. But the jibes of the Opposition should not deflect us from giving credit to those firms which are taking up the challenge of the North Sea supply industry. Already in Scotland we have more than 16,000 directly related oil jobs, and there are about 5,000 in the Northern Region of England. There will be much expansion in the next few years.
I remind the House that during the last period in office of the Conservative Party we saw many platform orders going abroad. The present position is that of the 18 on order or under construction, 11 are being built in the United Kingdom. That is a significant advance. On another important aspect of the offshore oil requirements—modules and associated structures—only two were being built in the United Kingdom in the second half of 1972. In the second half of 1974, 152 were being constructed. I pay tribute to the companies which put three platforms properly in position in the North Sea. If a British company had towed a platform to the Frigg field, as a French company did, and put it 3 kilometres out of position, there would have been a howl of condemnation in the British Press, to say nothing of what would have been said in this House. All British platforms are in position and ready to start production later this year.
The Government have been doing a great deal in this regard. We have expanded the Offshore Supplies Office and moved it to Scotland, where it works as a United Kingdom Department. Under the Conservative administration there were about 60 staff in the office—12 of them in Scotland. The staff has been trebled, and two-thirds of them operate


from Glasgow. We have brought order to the problem of sites for platform construction by identifying designs and giving planning permission for sites. In terms of training, the Government are establishing a centre for drilling technology at Livingston and a diving training centre at Fort William, and they recently gave a grant of £300,000 to Heriot Watt University to set up a petroleum engineering centre to provide postgraduate and post-industrial experience courses in petroleum engineering.
The Government have been extremely active in promoting our offshore supplies industry. Their activities and achievements make the claim that there is some censure to be placed upon my right hon. Friend look ridiculous, especially when they are compared with the opportunities which were ignored when the Conservatives were in office. That is a matter that we have to have constantly in mind.
There have been criticisms of the Government's taxation policy. Perhaps I should apologise to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, because my right hon. Friend, by making his announcement today, made matters difficult for the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns, who had not time to rewrite his speech. As a result the hon. Gentleman criticised us for uncertainty, when a decision had been made and announced to the House earlier today.
It comes ill from the Conservative Party to talk about uncertainty, since their Government had no taxation policy whatever. We have listened to a series of excuses and evasions from the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford told us about this in his Second Reading speech on the Oil Taxation Bill. He said that no decision had been taken but that his right hon. Friends were thinking about it and were about to decide. But what was to stop them, before they left office, producing a coherent taxation policy for the North Sea?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have said before and I say again that my right hon. Friend, now Lord Barber, intended to announce his taxation proposals in the Budget. These are budgetary matters. However, the General Election came before the Budget. That is the answer.

Mr. Smith: We have the same excuse again. They were about to do this. They were thinking about it. We have heard no details of what they intended to do. It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to publish now what he had in mind then—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We sent it to the Government.

Mr. Smith: We were promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some realistic policies on energy. They never came, either.
We cannot put very much faith in the promises of the Conservative Party. The truth is that it has no taxation policy. The Tory Government were rightly indicted by the Public Accounts Committee—an all-party Committee of the House—for the way in which they handled the fourth round of North Sea licensing. In case the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford is under any misapprehension about the matter, he can read that Committee report and see for himself the criticisms made in its conclusions.
Not only did the Committee severely criticise the Tory Government for making no variation in the licensing terms between 1964 and 1971, despite the discoveries of oil in the North Sea and the knowledge of its potential; it also criticised the then Government for not obtaining a degree of Government participation in the 1971 licensing round. That was the unanimous view of the PAC, on which there was a Conservative majority. It does not require us on the Labour side to criticise the then Conservative Government. We have the record of the PAC to do that.
In framing our taxation policies we have been concerned to secure the maximum return for the nation while making sure that there is sufficient incentive for continued exploration and development. The Government have judged it just about right.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman still adhere to the view expressed by him at a Financial Times conference in December, to the effect that one of the reasons for participation was to guarantee Government revenue not simply by taxation but also by a share of the profits earned on investment? How


does he tie that up with what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the House last week, to the effect that the Government are not looking for any additional revenue from participation?

Mr. Smith: I am glad the right hon. Member has raised that point. He has completely failed to take account of the future licensing policy which the Government will follow. In the next round of licensing, oil companies will not be allowed to get away with murder, as they did under a Conservative Government. It will be a condition of the future licensing rounds that there will be at least 51 per cent. State participation.
There are many ways in which the State can use that participation profitably, as we know from the experience of many other countries. Nearly every other oil-producing country is involved in participation. I understand that even the Republic of Ireland has brought forward proposals for such participation.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The United States?

Mr. Smith: Not the United States. I hope that we shall not follow the policy which that country adopts towards the oil companies. It is one which has attracted a lot of criticism within the United States. Let us, instead, follow the policies of such oil-producing countries as Norway and Denmark—particularly the policies of those countries sharing North Sea oil. It will be very much at the heart of the Government's policy to ensure that the nation gets a fair return.
Apart from the ineffective challenge made by Conservatives we were favoured with a contribution by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I am sorry that he is not present now because I want to criticise what he said. I was astounded that a member of a Scottish National Party should speak about the energy situation in Scotland without saying a word at any point about the coal industry, which is of great importance to Scotland.
The hon. Member reiterated the National Party's contribution to this debate, which is that oil found in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf ought to be regarded as purely Scottish. Let me make the Government's policy quite clear. We

believe that this is British oil. If we examine the SNP proposition we see that it suggests that oil found 100 miles or so to the east of the Shetland Islands, where I would think few Scotsmen have ever been, must be apportioned only to one part of the United Kingdom.
What about the great natural gas resources off the East Anglian coast, currently supplying 95 per cent. of the gas consumption in the United Kingdom? Is that English or East Anglian gas? What about the oil which may exist in considerable quantities in the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea or the south-western approaches to the English Channel? Is that to be apportioned to England and Wales, or to Cornwall? What about the vast coal reserves in the Selby field in Yorkshire—a find as significant, in its own way, as many of the North Sea oil finds? Does that belong to Yorkshire?
When talking about nuclear capacity, let the Scottish National Party remember that the advances in technology taking place at Dounreay are there because of massive British investment in the nuclear power industry. When we examine this matter we can see how ludicrous it is—this artificial nationalist sub-division.

Mr. Hamish Watt: rose—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman did not favour us with his presence during the debate. I give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Since the Minister is a distinguished member of the Scottish Bar he will know very well where those reserves fall and under whose jurisdiction they fall. It was not the Scottish National Party that divided up the North Sea and labelled the Scottish sector and the English sector. That was done by international arrangement. The Minister must be aware of that.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is incorrect. Regarding what is described as a Scottish and an English sector, an arbitrary line was drawn for the application of the civil law. It is in no way a median line, drawn for this purpose or for any international convention.
Another aspect of the SNP policy to which I must draw attention is the suggestion that we should cut back oil production to 40 million tons a year.


That would be a foolish policy to adopt. I hope that the SNP will explain to the people working in the platform yards, the steel yards, the concrete yards, and to those building modules and working in engineering works, that it wants to kill our offshore oil supply industry before it gets off the ground. I hope that it will explain why these people will be put out of work.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall not give way. I have very little time left to complete what I want to say.
I hope that the Scottish National Party will make it clear that if we cut back oil production to 40 million tons a year there will be no development of the offshore oil supply industry in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and that there will be considerable unemployment. I hope that the SNP will face the consequences of that situation.
In considering the motion we must compare the policies principally of the Conservative Party against those of my right hon. Friend. I remind the House that a year ago the Conservatives left office in the midst of power cuts and shortages which they politely described as an attempt at energy conservation. I think that they must be guilty of a policy of overkill.
We do not want to go back to that bleak time—to the rota cuts and the interruption of supplies. The then Government left the coal industry in disarray. Under this Government we have had the tripartite plan and we have got £600 million investment being put into the coal industry, which is set fair for the future.

Mr. Evelyn King: rose—

Mr. Smith: I turn now to the nuclear power industry. The shifts and indecision—

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I come now to the nuclear power industry. It is galling that hon. Gentlemen should criticise my right hon. Friend because, after a delay of 44 months, they took no decision on our next stage of reactors, whereas within four months my right hon. Friend took the courageous decision which he is now pursuing. The previous administration's policy on oil is a history of bad bargains and negligence of the nation's interests. It is clear from what the Government have done within a year that we are securing our energy resources by the full development of coal, nuclear power, natural gas and oil.
I remind the Opposition parties that North Sea oil exploration and development is still going on. We have 28 or 29 rigs there at the moment. There have been two important discoveries recently, one by Conoco-NCB and the other by Texaco. What puzzles me most is why, of all subjects, the Opposition should start, at the beginning of what appears to be a new régime in their ranks—

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman will not divert me from what I want to say. What puzzles me is why, of all the subjects that the Opposition could have picked, they chose energy which seems to be the one in which they have the least credible record while in Government and the least credible excuse for attacking my right hon. Friend. It is amazing that, given the choice of political weapons, they should be so masochistic as to choose the boomerang. That is what has happened. There has been no attempt to frame a censure motion and no attempt to deal with the matter actively and diligently. The right Hon. Member—

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Energy should be reduced by the sum of £1,000:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 298.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[4.16 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Graham, Ted
Phipps, Dr Colin


Allaun, Frank
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Prescott, John


Ashley, Jack
Grocott, Bruce
Price C. (Lewisham W)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Radice, Giles


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Richardson, Miss Jo


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hardy, Peter
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Beith, A. J.
Hatton, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)
Hayman Mrs Helene
Rooker, J. W.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Roper, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Les
Sandelson, Neville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Sedgemore, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Selby, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Carter, Ray
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Silverman, Julius


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Small, William


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stott, Roger


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Swain, Thomas


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Edge, Geoff
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Weetch, Ken


Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wellbeloved, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Newens, Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Palmer, Arthur
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Pardoe, John
Woodall, Alec


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Park, George
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Parker, John



Golding, John
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gould, Bryan
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Martin Flannery and


Gourlay, Harry
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Ian Mikardo.




NOES


Baker, Kenneth
Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul


Bell, Ronald
Brotherton, Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Clegg, Walter


Biffen, John
Buck, Antony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.
Cope, John


Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Cormack, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Corrie, John




Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
Lane, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCusker, H.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gorst, John
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gray, Hamish
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Speed, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hall, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanley, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter
Stokes, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Heseltine, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wall, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Howell David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Hurd Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd amp; W'df'd)
Nott, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Younger, Hon George


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Osborn, John



Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaberry Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles and


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook.


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, Rt Hon John

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray


Aitken, Jonathan
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Alison, Michael
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Glyn Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter


Baker, Kenneth
Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Banks, Robert
Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Beith, A. J.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Monro, Hector


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gray, Hamish
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon
Morgan, Geraint


Biffen, John
Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Biggs-Davison, John
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hampson Dr Keith
Neave, Airey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neubert, Michael


Brittan, Leon
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony


Brotherton, Michael
Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Buck, Antony
Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John


Budgen, Nick
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bulmer, Esmond
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn
Pattie, Geoffrey


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian


Channon, Paul
Howell David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Churchill, W. S
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clegg, Walter
Hurd Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Cockcroft, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover amp; Deal)


Cordle, John H.
James, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd amp; W'df'd)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Freud Clement
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mather, Carol
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Steen Anthony (Wavertree)







Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Weatherill, Bernard


Stokes, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Peter
Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wakeham, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)



Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Adam Butler and


Townsend, Cyril D.
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Trotter, Neville






NOES


Abse, Leo
Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Archer, Peter
Dunlop, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Gerald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard


Atkinson, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Kerr, Russell


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kinnock, Neil


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lambie, David


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamond, James


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans John (Newton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton amp; Slough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Boardman, H.
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Litterick, Tom


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Bradford, Rev Robert
Ford, Ben
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Luard, Evan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce
McCusker, H.


Buchanan, Richard
Gilbert, Dr John
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Golding, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton amp; P)
Gould, Bryan
Mackenzie, Gregor


Campbell, Ian
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted
Maclennan, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carmichael, Neil
Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Carter, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Madden, Max


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Magee, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Clemitson, Ivor
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Hatton, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Hayman Mrs Helene
Mendelson, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Molloy, William


Cronin, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molyneaux, James


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Huckfield, Les
Moonman, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Noble, Mike


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Oakes, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
Ogden, Eric


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs Lena
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Ovenden, John







Owen, Dr David
Selby, Harry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Padley, Walter
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Palmer, Arthur
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Park, George
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parker, John
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Parry, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Ward, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Pendry, Tom
Sillars, James
Watkinson, John


Perry, Ernest
Silverman, Julius
Weetch, Ken


Phipps, Dr Colin
Skinner, Dennis
Weitzman, David


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Prescott, John
Snape, Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Price C. (Lewisham W)
Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Whitlock, William


Radice, Giles
Stallard, A. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stoddart, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stott, Roger
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Swain, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woodall, Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Roper, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Ross, William (Londonderry)
Tierney, Sydney
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Ryman, John
Tinn, James
Miss Betty Boothroyd and


Sandelson, Neville
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Johh Ellis.


Sedgemore, Brian
Tomney, Frank



Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates Exemption (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2028) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES (LONDON)

Mr. Speaker: Before calling on the Minister to move the motion standing in his name, I must say that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch (Mr. Brown).

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric S. Heffer): I beg to move
That this House takes note of the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2028), dated 4th December 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December.
The aim of regional industrial policy is to encourage the expansion of industry in the development and intermediate areas. To this end, as the House is well aware, the Government give assistance in financial and other forms towards industrial development in the assisted areas. The beneficiaries of this regional assistance are Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Northern England—that is, the North-East and Merseyside—and the extreme South-West. These are the areas which, for economic, geographic and historic reasons, have had a very difficult time for decades. These are the areas which have long experience of persistently high unemployment. Their unemployment rates are markedly higher than those in the rest of the country.
Let me illustrate the employment situation. I am using November 1974 figures. These are the latest for which there are full and substantial details. I find, for example, that in Liverpool there were 43,900 registered unemployed—an unemployment rate of 6·8 per cent.—against a mere 3,800 vacancies recorded by employment offices. In Glasgow, the unemploy-

ment rate was 4·9 per cent.—26,800 people unemployed against only 8,000 vacancies. In the very much larger total area and population of Greater London, on the other hand, there were 59,400 unemployed—an unemployment rate of 1·5 per cent.—and no fewer than 67,600 vacancies. I realise, of course, that the detailed figures will show some changes in the pattern I have described, but I have no doubt that the relative problems of places such as Liverpool and Glasgow will not have diminished. The figures would have been even worse if successive Governments had not pursued regional development policies in the last 30 years.
It is the aim of this Government to continue the battle to reduce as far as possible the unjust and wasteful disparities between different parts of the United Kingdom. I would remind the House that the Gracious Speech last March promised that high priority would be given to the stimulation of regional development and employment.
Let us look at the pledges we made when in Opposition. The Labour Party's programme for 1973 declared our intention to strengthen the industrial development certificate controls, and to tie their operation in closely with our overall planning at national and regional levels. What has happened? As the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 5th December last, the Government have doubled the regional employment premium, tightened the industrial development certificate control in the non-assisted areas, and announced three new programmes—that figure is now four—of advance factories. We therefore have a situation in which regional policy operates, as it has for many years, through a combination of inducements and controls. The inducements are the provision of financial assistance and buildings, and these are available to firms investing and providing jobs in the assisted areas.
The control is the IDC control, which was introduced in 1948. Its purpose, as I have already implied, is to secure a better economic balance between the different parts of Great Britain. In practice, this means encouraging the establishment of new industry and the expansion of existing industry in the assisted areas and,


where appropriate, controlling the establishment of new industry and the expansion of existing industry in areas liable to pressure on available resources of labour.
IDCs are not required in the development areas, including the special development areas. Outside the development areas, an application for planning permission for an industrial development in England and Wales must be supported by an IDC, if the industrial floor space to be created by that development, together with any related development, exceeds 5,000 sq. ft. in South-East England, 15,000 sq. ft. in the intermediate areas and 10,000 sq. ft. elsewhere. We have recently published an up-to-date guide to the operation of the control. Hon. Members will find this in Trade and Industry for 13th February. There are copies in the Vote Office if Members would like to have them.
I carried out a review of the control in the spring of last year and announced in July that we would be making a more critical examination of IDC applications where the project is considered to be mobile. I also announced the reduction in the IDC exemption limits which has led to this debate.
I should like to remind hon. Members of the history of the exemption limits. From 1948 until 1965 IDCs were required throughout Britain for any new industrial floor space exceeding 5,000 sq. ft. When we were last in office we extended the control to include ancillary floor space, and took power to vary the exemption limits. In London and the South-East, the limit was for a time brought down as low as 1,000 sq. ft. When we left office in 1970, the limit was 3,000 sq. ft. The Conservative administration raised the limits twice. In London it went first to 5,000 sq. ft. and then, in the middle of 1972, to 10,000 sq. ft.
I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that, in many ways, it is not the level of exemption limits which is the key but the Department's attitude to individual applications. It is a matter of setting the exemption limits at what can reasonably be regarded as a sensible level. I can assure the House that the IDC control will continue to be operated flexibly and with understanding of the needs of firms, and of the needs of areas which

have not shared consistently in the relative prosperity of the South-East generally.
Let me explain the way in which we have applied this policy in my Department. The special difficulties for the dockland areas of London are well known. In the two calendar years, 1973 and 1974, my Department approved 71 IDC applications for dockland locations, representing 2,159,000 sq. ft. of industrial floor space and 1,449 jobs, 881 of them male. In the same period, only three IDC applications, totalling 72,000 sq. ft., were rejected, and two of these were for speculative developments, which could not be entertained. I stress—and it is one of my Department's clichés—that each IDC application is considered on its own merits. It is the only way, as no two cases are alike.
We have found that a great majority of IDC applications in London—and indeed for other parts of the country—are for projects which are not mobile to the extent that they could be carried out in an assisted area, and relatively few applications are unacceptable on congestion grounds. Consequently, it is not surprising to find that, in the last three years, 93 per cent. of all IDC applications in Greater London have been approved.
You, Mr. Speaker, have told us that you have selected the amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). We have looked very carefully at this amendment which poses for me and my Department certain practical problems of administration. It is, however, an arrangement which I believe we could make work, because we recognise that there are serious problems in certain areas in Geater London and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I am prepared to accept the amendment.
I would assure the House once again that we shall continue to apply the IDC policy sensitively in all the areas where it applies, paying due regard to local circumstances, and to changing industrial situations, but subject always to the overriding needs of the assisted areas. The Government consider that these arrangements for the operation of the IDC control give the right balance between the interests of the assisted areas and those


of the rest of the country. I therefore invite the House to approve the motion with the amendment.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I beg to move, at the end of the motion, to add,
and desires that in so far as its operation in Greater London is concerned, applications for an industrial development certificate of up to 10,000 square feet shall not be refused, save on the intervention of the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate local authorities".
May I immediately express the thanks of my colleagues in London to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the very forthright way in which he put his case and for his kindness in accepting our amendment. We tabled the amendment because of the importance of this issue to London. The problem of the decline in industrial employment in London has reached alarming proportions. In the country as a whole the numbers employed in industry fell by 4 per cent. between 1961 and 1971. During the same period they fell by 25 per cent. in London. Since 1971 a further 125,000 such jobs have disappeared. This is the stark reality.
It cannot be right to allow all industry to disappear from an area such as London. It has a population of 7½ million. It represents one-seventh of England and Wales. It covers 620 square miles. It is surely inconceivable that the only jobs available in London should be in the service sector—and that assumes that there are any jobs available.
Apart from the social problems created by deliberately destroying the skills and crafts attained by workers and forcing them to seek employment in jobs which have little or no skills and which pay greatly reduced wages, how can we train apprentices to become the craftsmen of tomorrow? What are the manpower services all about? Of what value is it suggested that the industrial training schemes are? The primary reason is to train young men and women to work in industry. One cannot equate the destruction of industry in a conurbation such as London with the basic concept of industrial training.
We in London accept the needs of the assisted areas. We support the Govern-

ment without reservation in their policy in this regard. The assisted areas are entitled to all the help that the Government can give. The Government's acceptance of our amendment does not stop them from giving the maximum help to those areas. They will have our full support.
My hon. Friend the Minister has made a wise decision in accepting our amendment and I wish to place on record our appreciation. Although we appreciate that it will not dramatically improve the situation in London, it is our fervent hope that it will at least slow down the rate of decline. It will give confidence not only to industrialists but to the workers in London that the Labour Government cares that these matters are not left to somebody in Whitehall who has no understanding of their problems. I therefore hope that the House will accept the amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Much of the Minister's speech, especially at the beginning, was irrelevant to London's needs. I should like to ask whether the House would have had an opportunity to debate the matter had it not been for the activities of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in another place. In an interesting speech on 6th February he made the point that London's needs were being neglected because praying time had run out in this House.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) for making the point that this was an all-party motion against the Government—not the Labour Government but the government in Whitehall—as to how London should be treated.
The hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, Department of Industry, was a little less than usually sensible in his remarks. Having read to us a long speech, he said we could have read most of it in the supplement to Trade and Industry dated 13th February. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was becomingly modest in expressing his gratitude to the Minister. What he should have said was that


he and other London Members of Parliament on both sides of the House had enough votes to lead the Minister to deliver the goods tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] We know the facts quite well. I very much welcome the chance of asserting London's needs. It is right to remind the House that as recently as 2.38 a.m. on 29th January the GLC unanimously resolved that there was a need for the Government to rethink the situation on industrial development certificates.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: We are used in this House to hearing about regional problems and the way in which they are expressed by Scottish and Welsh nationalists. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is regrettable that we are now apparently seeing the development of London nationalism? Fortunately, that attitude has been eschewed by my hon. Friends but it is now being represented to the House directly and meanly in the words of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). Does he not appreciate that these are common problems in the United Kingdom and should not be resolved by threats about votes?

Mr. Finsberg: For far too long the voice of London has been silent in this House. The amount of time given to debating London matters such as the present motion compared with the amount of time devoted to Wales and Scotland needs to be looked at in the columns of Hansard. Certainly the Conservative Party proposes to give London its fair share of discussion in this House.
I very much hope that the House will accept the amendment, which is bipartisan and which was tabled for tonight because it was too late to annul the order. The order would have been annulled if the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary had given time for it at the right moment. Being a Londoner, he knows that.
There is growing unemployment in London, as the Minister said, but until now he has seemed rather less interested in the London problem than perhaps he should have been. When asked in the

House whether he would raise the IDC limits in the London area, he replied:
No. It is less than six months since the limits were reduced and I have no plans at present to make any further changes."—[Official Report, 18th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 399.]
He then talked about the Trade and Industry supplement.
The hon. Gentleman gave us figures which he said were the latest available. The latest at my disposal, given to me in Hansard yesterday, show that in Greater London the total numbers unemployed in May 1974 were 53,292, and this month—

Mr. David Lambie: What is the percentage?

Mr. Finsberg: People and people. I am not interested in percentages. Every unemployed person is to me someone out of work, and meaningless percentages shouted from a sedentary position are irrelevant. By this month the figure had risen to 71,000.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Is not the 43,000 unemployed on Merseyside, many of whom are my constituents, a far more significant figure than the figure which the hon. Gentleman quotes for the unemployed in the London area?

Mr. Finsberg: If the hon. Gentleman can restrain himself, I shall come to the question of Merseyside a little later.
London is doing badly. Unemployment this month is up to 71,000.
The Minister must not always appear to suggest—I say "appear", because I do not wish to do him an injustice—that the world begins and ends at Merseyside, Glasgow or elsewhere. He must look at the figures as a whole. He has given the impression that while he has his ear to the ground at Meriden or Kirkby he seldom has his ear to the ground in London, and it is time he did. If the capital city's heart is sick, the national body will be sick.
I have been at great pains to make it clear that this is a bipartisan—

Mr. Neville Sandelson: rose—

Mr. Finsberg: I have promised to be brief.

Mr. Mike Noble: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) is not giving way.

Mr. Finsberg: I notice that a quieter hon. Member wishes to intervene, and I give way to him.

Mr. Noble: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman typifies the current trend in the Conservative Party to represent the South-East. What would be his comments if he represented a constituency within a region which has the textile industry concentrated in it, where 55,000 out of 80,000 employees were on short time, and a substantial proportion were unemployed? Would he then be arguing that London was under-represented?

Mr. Finsberg: Having in the early 1960s negotiated with textile unions in Lancashire, I know the problems of the textile industry well. One does not have to represent a constituency outside the South-East to understand the problems of other parts of the country.

Mr. Sandelson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every London Member on the Government benches, particularly those whose names are associated with the amendment, would wish to dissociate himself from the hon. Gentleman's approach? No Labour Member is more conscious of the needs of the assisted areas and the regions than are the London Members. We are very conscious of those problems, but we are equally conscious of the developing problems that face us in our own constituencies. The hon. Gentleman is doing a disservice to his own cause, which is shared by Labour Members representing London constituencies, when he approaches regional problems in his present cavalier fashion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate finishes at 11.30 p.m. tonight, not at 11.30 a.m. tomorrow morning. If there are many lengthy interventions there will be little opportunity for the matter to be disposed of sensibly. I fail to see why so much heat has been generated, as the Government have accepted the amendment.

Mr. Finsberg: I knew that it was a mistake to give way to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). I regret doing so and I shall not do so again. The fact that the bipartisan amendment has been accepted by the Government means that the general feeling in the House is that London is not getting fair treatment. Up to now the Minister has been utterly inflexible. I know that discussions have been going on among Labour Members representing London constituencies, their colleagues and the rest of the country, but they did not secure a debate at the right time to enable the order to be annulled. It is only because of their Lordships that we have the opportunity of this debate.
Several Labour Members have been worried about development areas. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) mentioned the textile industry. In July 1972, as the Minister said, the IDC limit was raised. For the rest of the country the limit was raised to 15,000 sq. ft., and all the controls were removed from the special development and development areas. There is no question of the amendment taking one job away from the development or special development areas. Indeed, the Minister said that, but some of his hon. Friends did not seem able to comprehend it. London has no desire to try to get jobs at the expense of other parts of the country.
None the less, because of London's growing unemployment problems, it was wrong for London to be singled out by the Minister when the limits were reduced. No good reason has ever been put forward for the reduction that the Minister made. The decision which the House is being asked to take, which is that the limits shall be restored—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Heffer: He does not know what he wants.

Mr. Finsberg: I know more than the Minister does what I am talking about. He may know more what he is talking about. We are being asked to agree that for London, certificates of up to 10,000 sq. ft. shall not be refused, except on the Minister's intervention after consultation with the local authorities. Up to now that has not been the position. That


is all I said. The Minister may have misunderstood me.
Had it not been for the opportunity of this debate, London would not have had this concession, for which the local authorities in London have been asking since early December, when the Greater London Council sent out a detailed statement referring to Statutory Instrument No. 1283 of 1974.
It would be churlish to say that the Minister has not responded to London's needs. I do not intend to be that churlish. I have been churlish against a Government Department and not against an individual. The Minister has shown that in response to the views of the House he is prepared to be flexible. Since he is prepared to be flexible I believe that the House will welcome his repentance and will welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch in putting down the amendment which I hope the House will accept.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. James Welibeloved: It is a tragedy that in debating such serious matters as employment and the effect of the order on the Greater London area we should have been subjected to the sort of comments made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). I am sure that all hon. Members must be painfully aware of the human tragedy which is involved in the high unemployment figures of so many parts of this country, which are the shame of this country and which compare with the relatively low unemployment level in the Greater London area.
Our argument this evening is not directed against the rest of the country. We London Members fully support the Government's policy in trying at long last to do something realistic about unemployment by bringing jobs, industry and homes to those who are faced with these grave problems. London has problems which can be overcome by the very sensible attitude which the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have adopted in the order.
The amendment demonstrates the good will, the serious intent and the understanding by the Labour Government of the problems which confront the country and with which we grapple in Greater London. We London Members have had

many discussions with the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. We are delighted that they have accepted the amendment.
When the hon. Member for Hampstead purports to speak on behalf of the people of London one is forced to recall that he has been strangely silent on the many other occasions when Labour Members have fought late at night in this Chamber for the rights of Londoners. By accepting the amendment Ministers have recognised the force of the pleas made to them by the trade union movement, particularly the national executive committees of the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and many others who have made representations through the London Labour Party.
My hon. Friend the Member of Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has participated many times in these debates. So ardent has been his dedication to the problems of Londoners that he has earned for himself the title "Mouth of the Thames", and he carries it with great eloquence. He is affectionately known among his hon. Friends as "Ronologue". In organising the London group of Members so as to get the amendment accepted by the Government he has done a great service to London in a way which has not devalued the Government's efforts to deal with the regional problems elsewhere in the country.
During the past decade many thousands of jobs have been moved away from Labour constituencies in the southeast of London. Although serious unemployment has not resulted, many men and women have been declared redundant, in some cases no fewer than five times, during the past decade.
This amendment will restore confidence and hope to London. However, no hon. Member representing an area of high unemployment need have any fears, since the Government will see justice done to the workers of the United Kingdom.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have not been deluged with requests from people living in the London area. However, on Saturday night I spoke to several constituency Labour parties in Deptford. This matter came up at the meeting. I


did not answer the specific question although I defended the Government's record in a limited number of areas. The Under-Secretary of State replied to the point and said that he would bring it to the attention of his boss. However, the matter had been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State by Members of Parliament representing London constituencies.
We must be clear about what we are doing tonight. The idea of industrial development certificates and intermediate and special development areas is to push industry—private industry in the main, since it is relatively easy to push public industry around without these incentives—to the badly affected areas throughout the United Kingdom. That policy must be flexible so that it takes account of changing circumstances in the United Kingdom.
It may well be that the employment position in the south east and the Greater London area is not as good now as over the past four or five years, but that is not to say that it has deteriorated in relation to developments in the rest of the country. Although the percentage of industrial capacity and employment in London has fallen, it may well be that the position has deteriorated even faster in Scotland, in Wales and on Merseyside.
We must be flexible. If it can be shown that there is to be a slight marginal shift in resources to the advantage of London, that will affect the distribution of jobs in the worse-off areas.
My view is that to raise the limit for industrial development certificates to 10,000 square feet without the other inducements and incentives is to make only an extremely marginal improvement. But it is not for those of my hon. Friends who propose in their amendment to raise the limit to 10,000 square feet then to say that they support what the Government have done hitherto for the rest of the country. That cannot be so.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: Would not the logical conclusion of the amendment be to scrap the whole of the industrial development certificate apparatus?

Mr. Skinner: I do not make so strong a point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Meyer Galpern): Order. It would be entirely out of order to discuss the principle of industrial development certificates on this amendment.

Mr. Skinner: I have done my best to steer clear of that argument. I am trying to concentrate on the marginal issue which will occur as a result of the amendment. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend in saying that we can sweep them all away. But I suggest to those who believe in the Common Market principle that they should bear in mind that when we get any regional policy from the Common Market, and if it is on the lines propagated a short time ago—on more narrowly defined areas than our existing intermediate, development and special development areas—they are in for a rude awakening, because they will not be able to make amendments of this kind and have the sort of flexibility that we are discussing tonight. That is why I support it, because I do not see that it will shift our industrial capacity to the extent that some hon. Members imagine—certainly not to the extent that some hon. Members representing London constituencies hope.
I suggest that we have to concentrate on trying to find the real causes of employment. We have to concentrate our activities towards that end. If we are to solve the problems existing in the regions and in the Greater London area, we have to take into account the way in which we can use the Industry Bill. In addition, because in some of its aspects the Industry Bill is weak, we have to concentrate our minds on ways of developing industry throughout the country on a much wider basis, and we have to do that by public investment where private investment has failed.
One reason why the Greater London area is in relative trouble is the lack of activity by private investors and the asset stripping which has gone on over the years. I am concerned with the overall level of investment. I realise that it is no use continually paying lip-service to the idea that we can find a sufficient number of carrots and sticks to improve the relatively low level of investment in past years. It has to be done by public investment. That is the answer to the problem. It will not be found in the wider context of the Common Market,


that is for sure. That will be another shackle on the Greater London area especially. Certainly it will be a shackle on the intermediate and development areas.
Those are the lessons that we have to learn from this proposal. I support it. It will make a slight change. I have no doubt that hon. Members representing London constituencies will applaud it. But let us have none of this hypocrisy which says that we are behind the Government in what they have done hitherto in their attention to the special development areas, the intermediate areas and all the others, but which says at the same time that this order in itself will not change the situation.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Not for the first time I follow, not only physically but mentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am glad that this has turned out to be not merely a London debate but a debate about the principle of the industrial development certificate.
I was pleased to see my hon. Friends representing London constituencies taking part in the debate and, rightly defending their own people. Their speeches contrasted with that made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). While there are elements in the London amendment which I regard with anxiety as they affect regional policy, there is no doubt that the speech of the hon. Member was hostile towards regional policy. Too many people in the City think that the North begins at Finchley and ends at Hampstead. That is not good enough.
If we are right in saying that this debate is about regional policy and IDC policy, it is right to compare the difference between the two sides of the House. We have a well-stocked Labour bench comprising people concerned about unemployment, regional policy and investment. The Conservatives have not even got a forward line. They have four hon. Members in all. Even the House of Commons football team has more forwards. What is worse is that there is not one Liberal Member present—but I see that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has entered the Chamber. Even more serious, when we bear in mind the propaganda there has been

in Scotland and Wales, there is not one nationalist Member here. The nationalists claim that they have been neglected in debates. Now they have the opportunity to participate and they are not here. I hope that the people and the Press of Scotland and Wales will take note.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be an ideal time to have television cameras here?

Mr. Buchan: Every time I speak is a good time to have television cameras.
I have been sceptical about certain aspects of regional policy. I am reminded of what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) once said about regional development. At this point I must congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead on his translation to the Opposition Front Bench. I think that perhaps he was a little less churlish on the back benches.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in a previous incarnation, when he was Chancellor, said that Governments could offer industrial development certificates to industry along with other inducements but that if industrialists did not go to a certain area there was nothing else that could be done. The IDC policy is a minor part of the regional policy, but when I look at my constituency I realise that a great deal of the employment there is due to the operation of regional policy.
We have Babcock and Wilcox. Were it not for that firm's involvement on a United Kingdom basis in the generating programme, it would not be there. We also have Chrysler. By God! we are fighting to keep it at Linwood. It would not be there—with 7,000 jobs—without a regional policy. The IDC system plays a part in this.
What we are concerned with is not a new amendment, flexible or otherwise, for London. We are concerned with unemployment which is now reaching totally unacceptable levels. Those who have jobs with Chrysler in Scotland are working two days a week and fighting to keep their jobs. This week a deputation, not of trade unionists but of councillors from five councils in the area, is coming down to argue about Chrysler. Having read


tonight's headlines I would say that the Industry Bill is not being introduced before time. If we get the sort of reply from leaders of the industry that I read in tonight's headlines, it is time that we had planning agreements, public investment and public control.
Finally, I again thank London Members who are correctly fighting for their constituents, but we should not confuse their problem of 1·5 per cent. unemployment in their areas with the 5 per cent. unemployment in Glasgow. There is a difference. In Glasgow, for every vacancy there are five people unemployed. That is a big difference which transforms the situation.
The hon. Member for Hampstead said that we should be concerned with each individual who was unemployed. That is very good. It reminds me of the amendments I used to get from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. One would put down a good motion for the conference and the executive would change it, saying that the resolution should be done by half-past 11 the following Tuesday. That is the situation here. The suggestion is that unemployment is as bad in one area as in another for each person. But it is not. The unemployed in Hampstead are five times more likely to get jobs than are the unemployed in my area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reject the tone of his attack upon regional policy, however attractive it may be for the Tory Party to try to consolidate its basis on the relatively affluent South-East of England.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was giving way.

Mr. Buchan: I was giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had delivered his peroration.

Mr. Buchan: No.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to make it clear that I was making no such statement on regional policy as the

hon. Gentleman has twice attributed to me.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman could have fooled me. I thought that his endorsement of flexibility was carried to the point of fluidity. It was pouring out through the Thames estuary. I should have thought that a very good peroration if I had been allowed to make it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would have been out of order.

Mr. Buchan: Yes, of course. Were it not for the fact that regional policy is so well supported by the Chair, I might have attempted it.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: We are seeing a strange transformation of attitudes to regional policy. Tonight we have had the Minister of State's arm twisted by the considerable political muscle of London Members of Parliament. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I understand that it was twisted last night. The fruits are before us.
Last Friday I attended a conference in the West Midlands at which the participants had to consider a document which stated that the West Midlands will be the problem area of this country in the 1980s. Last week, I read in the Evening Standard a report of a speech by a man whose name I cannot pronounce, the chairman of the policy committee of the GLC, in which he said that the 1980s will see the 1930s situation in reverse with Londoners, so desperate will be their fate, marching to Jarrow. I think that in some ways we are going mad.
This situation raises the necessity for a completely new look at regional policy. I hesitate to say that it calls for the setting up of a Royal Commission or anything as distinguished as that, but it is obvious to many people that, while things would have been worse if regional policy had not operated, the 40 years for which we have had it have not changed the situation very much.
The unemployed differential between Scotland and the national average over the last 30 years has not deviated from about ·7 per cent. by more than 0·1 per cent. I could give many interesting statistics. I am sowing the seed in the Minister's mind in suggesting that we need a


reappraisal, if not an agonising reappraisal, of regional policy. I hate being parochial, but I think that Stoke-on-Trent is somewhere between the Great Wen of London and the holy of holies, Liverpool.
What we are debating tonight—namely, what we are suggesting is the problem of London—is something to which we have to give considerable attention. We spread the jam of regional aid very thinly across a surprisingly large part of the country. When the Secretary of State for Industry leads us into the Common Market we shall be more selective in our approach, and in a sense that will be a good thing.
What I am saying is that we have to look not only at what is now almost the whole country, if we include the West Midlands and London, but at the growth areas. Therefore, we must adopt an attitude to industrial development certificates which bears in mind perhaps more important—or perhaps not—or possible more subtle, criteria than the crude yardstick of unemployment.
I am making an appeal for an area such as mine where unemployment is not high. We must have a more ready access to IDCs because the export potential of the area is massive and much above the national average, and the import substitution potential in the energy field is much higher than in the country as a whole.
That is one important aspect of the problem, but one could go on—I shall not do so—to talk about the whole question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go on because he is really out of order.

Mr. Cant: I am sorry that I have roused you to such a state of indignation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members are prepared to fight for London, and I am prepared to fight for the city which I represent. If I am straying from the narrow confines of the order, I can only say that I have had many excellent precedents set for me this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One of the duties of the Chair is to determine when fights take place on particular issues. It is no use the hon. Member saying to the Chair that he is following someone's example. We are discussing an order and

an amendment, and it is the duty of the Chair to see that business is conducted according to the Standing Orders laid down by hon. Members themselves.

Mr. Guy Barnett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not realise that the Hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) had finished his speech.

Mr. Cant: I had not finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case. I call the hon. Member to continue his speech.

Mr. Cant: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us find out whether the hon. Gentleman has finished. Does he wish to continue his speech?

Mr. Cant: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have finished me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a most unusual thing for the Chair to do. One wonders whether one could do it more often.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am sure that every London Member present, and certainly each one on the Government benches, welcomes the contributions to the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the way in which the debate has been widened to regional policy and the problem of national unemployment.
A number of important points have been made, and I want to add only a marginal one. The effect of IDCs in London has been a good deal less than some people have pretended. Not long ago the Minister of State told me in a Written Answer the number of IDC applications that had been refused in South-East London—that is, in the boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley. I believe that out of 173 applications for IDCs between 1970 and 1974, precisely four were turned down. Two of those were in Southwark and two in Bexley. One could almost say that the consequence was that the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich, the latter of which I represent, were not subject to IDC control at all during those four years.
I say that because I am not certain that the concession we have gained is as important as some hon. Members are apt to point out, nor indeed as important to the regions as has perhaps been suggested by hon. Members who represent constituencies outside London. The structural problems in London's manufacturing industry are much more deep-seated and long-term than we admitted tonight.
I was very encouraged by a Written Answer I received on 24th February from the Minister of State, in which he said:
My Department is additionally contributing to a number of studies of the special problems of inner city assisted areas being carried out by the Government as a whole."—[Official Report, 24th February 1975; Vol 887, c. 25.]
That gives me much more cause for rejoicing than the small concession that the Minister has announced.
That is not to say that I am ungrateful, because it will do a good deal to restore confidence, particularly among working people in my constituency and elsewhere in London, but the problems of London are much greater than some of us have admitted tonight. For instance, a report entitled "Canning Town to North Woolwich: The Aims of Industry?" is very relevant to the debate. Some of the things it says suggest that London's problems may be as serious as those of some other great cities. In Chapter 9 it states:
What is needed is a set of policies for the outworn industrial areas of all Britain's towns irrespective of their geographical location within particular 'regions'.
That would be directly relevant to the problems of Liverpool, Merseyside, Glasgow, London, Birmingham and the rest.
Another reason why I welcome contributions from hon. Members for constituencies outside London is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn attention to the need to replace the kind of regional policy upon which we have tried to attract industry into the regions by the kind of policies contained in the Industry Bill. Since the war, regional policy year by year has become steadily less effective because of the concentration of economic power in private industrial hands. Instead of reacting to incentives by doing what the Government are trying to encourage people to do, these firms, some of them

multinationals, have been able to use the incentives for their own benefit and not in order to pursue the sort of policies which the Government have been trying to encourage in order to get industry to go where it is badly needed.
I could quote case after case of mergers and regroupings which have adversely affected London industry—AEI-GEC is the most obvious example—because incentives have been taken but employment has not gone where it was intended to go. That is why I am delighted that the Department of Industry is pursuing these studies. I hope that they will be pursued in depth, with the widest possible consultation with local authorities, the GLC, the unions and the employers involved. Only on that basis in the great cities, with their outworn industrial areas, shall we begin to solve some of the appalling problems affecting so many individuals and families.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) argued that the Minister of State was oriented towards Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. The Minister is certainly aware of the problems in those areas, and he knows at first hand what unemployment there means. He has himself been unemployed in Merseyside. Therefore, it is not a question of his being Merseyside-oriented. It is a question of a Minister who understands that level of unemployment there and in other areas. The policies now being pursued by the Government and acted upon, quite rightly, by the Minister, are directed accordingly.
I want to draw some assurances from the Minister. First, I have never seen IDCs as being a positive way of controlling the economy in so far as movement of industry is concerned. At present, however, that is all that we have. Regardless of how marginal this may appear, I want an assurance from the Minister that there will be no effect upon Government policy in relation to dealing with areas such as Merseyside, where the unemployment figure is not 40,000, as was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), but 53,000 in the Merseyside travel-to-work area. That was the January figure—7 per cent.
I accept that the problems concerning IDCs in London should be examined, but this ought not to be a movement by the Government away from the desperate problems that exist in the regions I have mentioned. I should appreciate an assurance from the Minister that arising from the amendment there will be no shift of direction by the Government away from Merseyside and other areas of high unemployment.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: It always seems as though any debate in which I get involved becomes rather heated at certain stages and of greater import and impact, perhaps, than many other debates. I cannot understand that. This has been a very heated debate at times, but it has also been very important and very interesting.
First, I should like to contrast the speeches made by my hon. Friends with the one alien speech made from the Opposition side. That was an injection into the debate which really dealt very little with the serious problems we have been discussing. It was a piece of sheer political effrontery—I cannot think of another more appropriate phrase—which had very little to do with the serious problems that all my hon. Friends have raised, whether they be from the London area or from Scotland, Wales or the various English regions.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) more or less implied that the amendment would change the nature of the order. I want to make it clear that the amendment does not raise the limits. I repeat that it does not affect the operation of Statutory Instrument No. 2028. The IDC exemption limit for London and the rest of the South-East Region has been 5,000 sq. ft. since 1st September 1974 and it remains at that. What the amendment does is to give the Secretary of State guidance in the way in which the control is to be applied to small projects. If officials think it right to refuse an IDC for a scheme below 10,000 sq. ft. in London, they will seek the Minister's endorsement for that decision. That is the reality of the situation. We have gone slightly further than that by involving the appropriate local authorities as well. If I honestly believed that the amendment

was in any way harming, cutting across or undermining the Government's regional policy, I would not have accepted it. I would rather have gone out of the Government than accept such an amendment. I make that absolutely clear.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that it is not the Government's intention in any way to stop their regional policy of inducing firms to go to Merseyside, the North-East, South Wales, Scotland or other areas. On the contrary, it is our intention to continue with our regional policy and to step it up. But to some extent we are changing it. For a long time we have held the carrot. We have wielded the stick, as it were, by means of IDC controls, but that has not been enough. What is now required is the introduction of the sort of policies that we are bringing forward in the Industry Bill—namely, positive proposals to invest in the regions.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the carrots for London has been the new towns in South-East England? Further does he agree that one of the matters we should consider in terms of London and other parts of the country is whether our policy is as opportune now as it once was?

Mr. Heffer: It is almost as if my hon. Friend knew that I was coming to that point. I am glad that he raised it. There has been reference to the extent to which industry has been moving out of London, particularly inner London. That obviously has a relationship to the whole question of new town policy. I think we all agree that that movement has been encouraged by the Greater London Council, and before that by the London County Council as part of the programme of overspill housing in the new and expanded towns. No one can deny that. A new town is built and then it is discovered that there is no local industry. Obviously the next step is to encourage industry, but that has nothing to do with IDCs. I know that the Greater London Council has given active encouragement to the policy I have outlined.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is not this a sensible Socialist regional policy that is good for London as well? By


moving industry to the regions, the overcrowded school classes and the homelessness are reduced and the social fabric is protected. The sensible Socialist policy of moving industry into other areas is to the benefit of London as well as other parts of the country.

Mr. Heffer: I have listened many times to my hon. Friends from London explaining the tremendous difficulties and problems raised by housing and education needs in London. Regional policy is very much integrated with ameliorating the difficult problems that exist in the London area.
There is no doubt that there has been a serious rundown of manufacturing industry in certain parts of London. There has also been a rundown of manufacturing industry in other areas, many of them assisted areas. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) that that does not necessitate merely the broad regeneration of industry throughout the country but a regeneration of industry in the large cities. That is absolutely right. That is why the Government are now studying the city areas. We shall ultimately come before the House with our proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates Exemption) (No. 2) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2028), dated 4th December 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th December and desires that in so far as its operation in Greater London is concerned, applications for an industrial development certificate of up to 10,000 square feet shall not be refused, save on the intervention of the Secretary of State after consultation with the appropriate local authorities.

Orders of the Day — VIOLENCE IN MARRIAGE

Ordered,
That Mrs. Lena Jeger be discharged from the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage and that Mrs. Audrey Wise be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 21st November relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Airey Neave be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Anthony Nelson be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 14th January relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, Mr. Norman Fowler be discharged from the Committee and Mr. David Lane be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY (CHARGES)

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The subject of tonight's short debate is of general concern beyond the area of the Southern Water Authority of which I wish to speak in particular. I am very glad that the Minister of State is here tonight to reply, because in addition to his being a celebrated authority on and having an interest in sport he is interested in and is an authority on water and, as I assume follows naturally from that, water sport.
Another reason for my being glad that the Minister is here tonight is that I wish to recall words he used in a debate on the Water Bill in 1973:
We should like to see …
'that the fullest expression of consumer and local authority interests' is taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1146.]
I wish to refer to two aspects of water charges on which neither the consumer


nor the local authority interest has been adequately considered. The first of these is the speed of progress towards the equalisation of water charges within the area of a water authority. The second is the method by which those charges are equalised. It will simplify matters if, for the purposes of this debate at least, we accept that there is need and justification for the equalisation of water charges.
On the question of how equalisation can be achieved. I hope that the Minister will agree that we must turn to the report of the Jukes Committee as the authoriy on this matter. I quote from the Water Services Economic and Financial Policies Report, paragraph 3.3:
We recommend as a general principle, therefore, that charges for 1974/75 and 1975/76 should be levied as far as possible on the basis which would have existed in the absence of water services reorganisation.
Paragraph 3.4 of the report states:
This means that the Water Authorities should not initiate any moves to equalise charges in their regions during the period 1974/76".
Paragraph 3.6 states:
It is recommended that the Water Authorities should implement only those adjustments aimed at equalisation or harmonisation of charges which would have been undertaken by the existing authorities but for the water services reorganisation.
Those quotations make very clear what the Jukes Committee had in mind when it made its recommendations to the Department.
We find astonishingly that the water rate charge proposed for Hove in the coming year is to increase from 2£66p in the pound to 6·9p in the pound, an increase of no less than 159 per cent. I hope the Minister will agree with me that that is an astonishing increase against the background of the recommendations of the Jukes Committee. It is brought about by the proposal of the Southern Water Authority to move to equalising water charges within its area, not subsequent to the year 1975–76, as was recommended, not in relatively easy stages, as recommended, but immediately, in the year starting with effect from April 1975.
It seems to me that the introduction of an immediate equalisation at this time must be regarded as highly irresponsible. We are surely all familiar with the public outcry about rates generally. I do not wish—I am sure that you would rule me

out of order if I attempted to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to go into a general discussion on the subject of rates, but the public outcry and the continuing concern raised on a number of occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House must be a factor in considering whether the proposal of the Southern Water Authority is a reasonable one.
It seems to me that common sense dictates that, at a time when there is particular public concern about the level of rate charges, any step which introduces an unusual and dramatic increase in a particular element of the rate charge should be avoided. Against the background of the Jukes Report recommendations we have a strong reason for avoiding that step.
But that is not the only consideration. There is another aspect of the problem which is a little more technical, and that is the method by which one arrives at the ultimate objective of equalising the charge. I hope it will be agreed that when we are considering the water rate we are considering not a tax but a charge for a service. The general rate itself can, in effect, be regarded as a tax on property. I think that all those who pay it so regard it. I suggest, however, that the charge for the provision of water is regarded not as a tax on property but rather as a charge for a service. I contend that in the same way as postage and other services are charged on an equal basis, the charge for water should similarly be on an equal basis.
Surely we can all agree that if we are charging for water on an equal basis we do not set about so doing by charging on a basis of assessing so much per house, because houses on the whole do not use water; water is used by individuals, and the consumption of water varies fairly directly according to the number of individuals with whom we are dealing. It seems to me that a water rate that is assessed per head of the population is much more likely to be a fair water rate between areas than one that is based on an assessment of the value of property.
Furthermore, we must bear in mind that when we try to compare the values of properties in different rating areas we are up against the different tones of the list that might be found in those areas. It has been recognised that comparative


valuations based purely on rateable values are not an entirely reliable guide to comparative values. The proposal of the Southern Water Authority to equalise its water rate according to rateable value will cause the charge per head of the resident population in Hove to rise to no less than £6·95p—by far the greatest in the authority's area.
There are implications which go beyond even this immediate effect, because if this application of a uniform poundage is carried through into the general service charge we shall find that the charge per head for domestic ratepayers in Hove will be increased from the present £10·53p for water and sewerage to no less than £43·67p per annum by 1978 at present-day costs merely through the process of equalisation. That is an increase of £33·14 per head. We are looking at these two problems of equalisation on an immediate basis and against the background of the Jukes Committee's recommendations and of rate rises and the concern which they have caused. We must also consider the matter in the light of the fact that water rates as a charge on individuals do not qualify for rate rebates.
Because of these factors, the burden of water rates is especially severe for elderly persons who live alone, very often in property which might have a quite high rateable value. I hope the Minister will agree that the case is established to consider the need for speedy action to avoid this alarming and indefensible increase in the water rate in particular areas of the Southern Water Authority, and particularly in the Borough of Hove.
I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister of his power under Section 5 of the Water Act 1974, under which the Secretary of State
may give water authorities directions of a general character as to the exercise by such authorities of their functions … so far as the exercise of those functions appears to the Minister to affect the execution of the national policy for water or otherwise to affect the national interest.
I submit that at the present time, when we are all agreed on the need for restraint, an increase in charge of 159 per cent. certainly affects the national interest.
We have established the need and also the fact that there is power to act. I suggest that it is always a little

dangerous to rest one's case upon the question of what is fair and what is reasonable, but not often do we find a situation in which what is fair and what is reasonable is so far removed from what is proposed.
I believe that we must reconsider the basis upon which we equalise these charges, because clearly it is not reasonable to charge for a service on the same basis as a charge for tax. More urgently, however, we must reconsider immediately the proposal to equalise the water rate because of its quite arbitrary and exorbitant effect on certain areas and the charge that will fall upon those areas.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and to say how glad I am to see with us the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, because I know that he recently had an enjoyable visit to Brighton to watch some international table tennis.
I have in my constituency, about 20,000 retired people, many of whom live on small, fixed incomes. The massive increase in water and sewerage charges will be yet another burden upon them. The charges will rise from the 1973·74 figure of 2·48p in the pound to over 4p in the pound, and in 1975–76 they will increase to 6·9p in the pound.
A large number of my constituents, particularly those on smaller incomes, are very angry about the situation. I wish to quote from a letter which one constituent wrote to the Brighton Evening Argus:
It is little short of a scandal that a ratepayer has to make an arithmetical analysis before he discovers that his water rate has gone up by 41 per cent
This group will have to face yet another heavy burden. I ask the Minister to support my hon. Friend's request to use his powers to minimise this further hardship which will be imposed on my long-suffering constituents.

11.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): It is interesting that we are having this debate. I appreciate the courteous way in which both the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) have


put their case and have spoken about their great cause for anxiety, but it was predictable and was predicted. The hon. Member for Kemptown voted for the Second Reading of the measure concerned, when some of us predicted exactly what would happen to water charges. Nevertheless, the previous Government decided to go ahead.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hove for quoting one of my comments. I hope he will not mind if I quote another which reflects the point we are discussing, which is that the good citizens of Brighton and Hove were provided with ample and efficient and economic supplies of water and now find that in a sense they are penalised and in difficulty because of the prudence of their forefathers.
On 1st May 1973 I said:
It is clear that some local authorities which have provided first-class capital works and water supplies for their citizens are in danger of having to pay twice. They have already paid to provide first-class facilities, but under the Government's proposals they may well have to provide new capital works in order to serve those authorities which, the Minister says, have been badly served in the past. There is a strong feeling that an increase in water charges could well be brought about not by improvement in supply and facilities in London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, whose citizens have already paid to do the job in their own areas, but because they will have to pay a further contribution to make up deficiencies of other areas—[Official Report, 1st May 1973; Vol. 855, c. 1058–9.]
I should have included Brighton and Hove in the list when I was making that pertinent point.
But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that some of us predicted what would happen is no consolation to their ratepayers now. The Jukes Report clearly deals with the matter. I think that the hon. Member for Hove quoted from the Second Report. There have been three reports. I want to read a passage from the third which, while not quite as specific as the quotation the hon. Gentleman gave, was relevant and along the same lines. Paragraph 1.24 said:
In view of the substantial increases in the general level of charges that may be expected next year, any moves towards the great equalisation of charges should be both gradual and limited in extent in order to avoid further sharp increases in charges to particular groups of consumers.
Ministers in my Department, including myself, saw the chairmen of the water authorities on 20th November last year

and drew their attention to those wise words. We asked them to proceed in the determination of their charges for next year along those lines. By and large, we had from them a commitment to do so. Most of the water authorities aim to do what the Act asks them to do, which is to move towards equalisation. It is not for me to defend the Southern Water Authority, because it is an autonomous body, a nationalised industry, set up by the Conservatives. It is a body without proper accountability, which is a point that I made.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister agree that in that debate, which for reasons that he knows I was not able to listen to, he was pressing for nationalisation, and not for what the Act established, so that he can scarcely now say that we have a nationalised industry?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman was not here and, therefore, could not take part in the debate. I am left to speculate which way he would have voted. I was pressing for a totally nationalised water industry at the centre under which we would provide water to the local authorities and maintain the position of local authorities, which would use the water, clean it and put it back into the national water system. That was the Opposition policy at the time which we urged on the Conservative Government without great success.
It is not for me to defend the Southern Regional Water Authority, but I understand that the authority felt that the degree of administration necessary to get equalisation was much greater in its region than in most others and it could not therefore be done in one go. Other areas—for example, Thanet, Medway, and North-West Sussex—have benefited considerably. The hon. Member for Hove said that everyone would now pay 6·9p in the pound for water. Had it not been for equalisation, Thanet would have paid 7·3p, Medway 9·36p and North-West Sussex 11·64p.
While I acknowledge the problem in the two constituencies mentioned, the Southern Regional Water Authority has given considerable help to a large number of ratepayers elsewhere. It is for the authority to make the judgment whether it is following the right policy. A majority of local authority members


serve on regional water authorities these days, although the situation is not exactly as we wish it to be.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I hesitate to interrupt in someone else's Adjournment debate, but I represent a constituency which has suffered from equalisation. I shall be sending figures tomorrow to the Minister showing that over the last two years the Ventnor town council sewerage rate has increased by 974 per cent. Will the Minister deal with sewerage rates in his reply?

Mr. Howell: I shall not deal with that tonight. There may have been no sewerage disposal at all two years ago—I do not know the circumstances. The Government have just given a 50 per cent. relief to households with no sewerage services, and that is a not inconsiderable amount.
We asked the regional water authorities to take account of the Jukes Committee's proposals. We are in difficulty about giving directions because we have no power to insist on being consulted by regional water authorities before they determine their pricing policies. They have determined their pricing policies, fixed their charges and told local authorities what is to be collected. I have sympathy with the general view put forward. We are trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted. It is this lack of accountability, which I forecast and complained of at the time, that causes considerable difficulty.
The hon. Member for Hove said that the water rate does not attract a rate rebate. Again, that has resulted from the way the Conservative Government went about the reorganisation. They removed water from the sphere of local government and, in effect, established a nationalised industry. Once they did that, water was on the same footing as electricity and gas and, therefore, under the law of the land it was not eligible for rating relief.
The hon. Member also said that rate-able value was an unfair basis, and the Government are inclined to be sympathetic to that view. That is why we established the Layfield Committee. On water charges I cannot go along with the hon. Member when he says that it

would be more equitable to have a charge per head of the population, since that would have considerable social consequences. The charges would fall hardest on large families and people who use more water than small families.
Perhaps we should look at the question of charging per household, which would be a system with which I would have sympathy. That would mean that any house divided into, say, two or three households would pay more than the same house next door which was occupied by a lady living alone. I concede that there might be some justice in that. Certainly as and when we can look at these matters we shall do so.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we find the whole question extremely disturbing. It has been going the way that many of us predicted. It has caused considerable concern. We cannot divorce the water situation from the reorganisation of local government. Whereas previously the ratepayer was paying for only one set of officers and offices, he is now paying for one set for the county, one for the district and one for the water authority. That reorganisation has its own inflationary momentum.
The question therefore is whether we can intervene immediately. My right hon. Friend said that it would be quite impossible for us to look at the water situation in less than two years. We have given an undertaking to the National Water Council and the chairmen of water authorities to that effect. We are getting on into that two-year period, but we said that we would give the authorities two years to settle down. Then we shall look with an open mind and see how the system is running. I give the assurance that all matters that have been raised tonight will be taken into account in our examination. I know that that is no great consolation to the ratepayers in Hove now.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Minister talks of a two-year period. Earlier he spoke of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted. Surely the horse will have bolted that much further in two years. The new authorities come into full effect on 1st April. There is plenty of time for the Minister to exercise the powers that he acknowledges he possesses.

Mr. Howell: This is the second year of charges for water authorities, and that is why I made the point that we are moving on towards the half-way stage of the period mentioned in my right hon. Friend's undertaking. I honestly cannot hold out any hope of doing anything for the hon. Member's constituents this year because it is too late. The charges have gone out, regrettable though that may be. They cannot be reduced for the people of Hove unless they are increased for the people of Thanet, Medway and North-West Sussex. That would be a very complicated balancing factor and

might cause even more widespread distress than the present situation.
I regret the situation which has been created. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy. However, the present Government predicted the consequences of the legislation and we urged the House to vote against it. The Labour Party voted against the measure, but was outvoted by the Conservative Party.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.